Director of Public Prosecutions, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham Magistrates' Court

An adjournment of a criminal trial is a discretionary case-management decision requiring rigorous scrutiny, but the court must still do justice between the defendant, the prosecution, the public and those affected by the alleged offence. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the charge, the reason for the adjournment, responsibility for the delay, the likely length and consequences of any adjournment, previous delay, prejudice and the public interest in a trial. A court acts unlawfully where it places an unrealistically high evidential burden on an applicant and fails to balance those matters. The decision was confined to its particular facts and did not qualify the general need for expedition.

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought judicial review of two decisions by Birmingham Magistrates' Court in a sexual-assault prosecution. The court refused, on the morning fixed for trial, to adjourn when the complainant could not attend because five members of her family were said to have died overnight in Yemen. The prosecution then offered no evidence and the charge was dismissed. The magistrate subsequently refused to state a case for the opinion of the High Court.

The central issue was whether the refusal to adjourn was outside the range of reasonable decisions available to the magistrate.

1. Disposition. The refusal to adjourn and the consequent dismissal of the charge were quashed. The case was remitted for trial before a differently constituted magistrates' court.
2. Section 10(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 confers a discretionary power to adjourn a trial. The appellate court ordinarily interferes only where very clear grounds are shown.
3. The approach in CPS v Picton remains applicable. Magistrates must scrutinise adjournment applications rigorously and give proper weight to expedition, while balancing the defendant's interest in finality against the public interest in adjudicating serious criminal charges. They must consider the reason for the application, responsibility for the delay, the history of the case, the likely length and consequences of the adjournment, prejudice and the need to do justice between the parties. The overriding objective in Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules reinforces the need for fair, efficient and expeditious case management.
4. On the information available at the time, there was no reason to doubt that a fatal event involving family members had occurred. It was unrealistic to require the distressed complainant and her fiancé to attend court before the explanation could be accepted. The explanation had been volunteered at the earliest opportunity, there had been no previous adjournment or prosecutorial fault, and the magistrate had failed adequately to consider the seriousness of the allegation, the public interest and the absence of demonstrated prejudice from further delay.
5. The decision was expressly confined to its particular facts. The court endorsed the general approach in CPS v Picton and DPP v Petrie, including the need to meet trial dates and scrutinise adjournment applications rigorously.

• Birmingham Magistrates' Court: refused an application to adjourn the trial on 17 January 2017; the prosecution offered no evidence and the charge was dismissed. The court later refused to state a case.
• High Court (Administrative Court): quashed the refusal to adjourn and the consequent dismissal, and remitted the case for trial before a differently constituted court.