Belton v The Crown Prosecution Service

When deciding whether to adjourn a criminal trial, magistrates must balance the defendant’s ability to present the defence against the public interest in expedition and adjudication. They should consider the likely consequences and length of the adjournment, the reason for it, any fault, the case history and the need to assess evidence while recollections remain fresh. The decision is discretionary. On appeal, intervention requires clear grounds, such as irrationality or a decision which no reasonable bench could have reached.

The appellant was convicted at Highbury Magistrates’ Court of racially aggravated threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. During cross-examination, the complainant referred to an earlier visit by a police officer and an account recorded in the officer’s notebook. The appellant sought an adjournment so that the notebook could be produced, arguing that it might contain material affecting the complainant’s credibility.

The magistrates refused the adjournment, considering that the existing inconsistencies had already been explored, that the notebook was unlikely to advance the defence, and that reconstituting the bench would cause substantial delay. The appeal by way of case stated concerned the law governing adjournments, fairness, delay and costs.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates had been properly directed on adjournments by reference to Crown Prosecution Service v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108 (Admin); 170 JP 657.
2. The power under section 10(1) of the Magistrates Court's Act 1980 was discretionary. The relevant considerations included the defendant’s ability fully to present the defence, the public interest in the prompt determination of criminal proceedings, the likely length and consequences of an adjournment, responsibility for the need for delay, the history of the case and the freshness of recollections. The factors were not exhaustive and had to be applied in the circumstances of each case.
3. The magistrates were entitled to conclude that the requested notebook did not go to the central issue, namely whether the appellant had used racially abusive language. The inconsistencies concerning other words had already been put to the complainant in cross-examination. The existing CRIS and CAD records supported the prosecution account, and the notebook could assist the appellant only if it contained no reference to racial abuse.
4. The magistrates were also entitled to take account of the practical delay involved in reconvening the same bench. Their reasons were clear, and the decision was not irrational in the public law sense or one which no reasonable bench could have reached.
5. The first four questions were answered “yes”, “no”, “no” and “yes”. The fifth question concerning costs was also answered “yes”, although no application for costs was ultimately made by the respondent.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the justices at Highbury Magistrates’ Court on 16 December 2014.