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

A material mistake of fact resulting in unfairness is available as a ground of judicial review of a decision on an application to adjourn a trial in the Magistrates’ Court. The ground is strictly limited to exceptional cases. The fact must be existing, uncontentious and objectively verifiable; the claimant must not be responsible for the mistake; and the mistake must have played a material part in the court’s reasoning. Criminal participants share an interest in ensuring that an adjournment application is determined on the correct factual basis. Applications to adjourn remain discretionary and require rigorous scrutiny, with particular regard to expedition, fault, prejudice, the public interest in adjudication and the circumstances of the case.

Two conjoined judicial review claims concerned decisions to adjourn criminal trials in the Magistrates’ Court. In the Sunderland claim, the court refused a prosecution adjournment because it mistakenly believed that the complainant had not attended, and the charge was dismissed. The complainant had in fact attended and was waiting to give evidence, while the defendant knew this but did not disclose it.

In the City of London claim, the court granted a prosecution adjournment after mistakenly believing that the prosecution had not served any evidence or disclosure. The material had in fact been posted, although late. The central issues were whether material mistake of fact resulting in unfairness was available in criminal judicial review proceedings and whether the adjournment decisions fell within the magistrates’ discretion.

1. Sunderland: The refusal of the adjournment and dismissal of the charge were quashed and the case was remitted for rehearing. The complainant had attended court, the fact was established by uncontentious CCTV evidence, neither the prosecution nor its advisers caused the mistake, and the mistake was decisive in the judge’s reasoning.
2. Material mistake of fact resulting in unfairness is available in this context. The five conditions are: the participants share an interest in achieving a just result; there is a mistake about an existing fact or the availability of evidence; the fact or evidence is uncontentious and objectively verifiable; the claimant or advisers did not cause the mistake; and the mistake materially affected the reasoning. The Criminal Procedure Rules and Criminal Practice Direction establish a shared interest in the correct factual determination of an adjournment application.
3. The remedy is narrowly confined to judicial review of decisions on applications to adjourn Magistrates’ Court trials, which should ordinarily be challenged only in exceptional circumstances and with great urgency. The approach does not dilute the rigorous scrutiny required by Crown Prosecution Service v Picton and related authorities.
4. City of London: The claim was dismissed. Although the parties had proceeded on a mistaken understanding of service and disclosure, the Justices were entitled, on the facts as they appeared at the hearing, to grant the adjournment. The defence had failed to alert the court promptly to the prosecution’s procedural failures and lack of readiness. The Justices considered the seriousness of the allegation, the evidence, the parties’ conduct and the need to permit a full defence.
5. Adjournment decisions remain discretionary case-management decisions. Relevant considerations include expedition, the public interest in a trial, the defendant’s ability to present a defence, the length and consequences of delay, responsibility for the need to adjourn, previous adjournments and the particular circumstances of the case.

The judgment determined two conjoined judicial review claims in the Divisional Court. The Sunderland claim was brought with permission from Julian Knowles J. The City of London claim was brought with permission from Dove J.