Pari-Jones v CPS

When deciding whether to adjourn a criminal trial, the court must balance the need for expedition against the accused’s ability to present a full defence. It should consider the consequences of refusing the adjournment, whether the circumstances were the fault of the applicant, and the overall requirements of justice. Proceeding in the absence of the accused and legal representative may deprive the accused of a fair opportunity to give evidence and challenge the prosecution case. An appellate court should interfere only where no reasonable tribunal, properly directing itself on the relevant principles, could have reached the decision made.

This was an appeal by case stated from the North West Wales Magistrates’ Court. The magistrates had refused to adjourn a half-day criminal trial concerning alleged criminal damage to a neighbour’s fence. The defendant and her solicitor were unable to attend because of severe snow and ice, and the trial proceeded in their absence. The central issue was whether the refusal was a decision that no reasonable bench could have reached on the information available.

1. Appeal allowed. The magistrates’ decision to refuse the adjournment was quashed in substance, and the matter was remitted for trial on a convenient date.
2. An adjournment is within the trial court’s discretion, and an appellate court must not substitute its own view. Intervention is justified where no reasonable bench, properly directing itself according to the applicable principles, could have reached the decision made.
3. When an accused seeks an adjournment, the court must consider whether refusal would prevent the accused from presenting the defence, the extent of any resulting prejudice, the consequences of an adjournment, and whether the circumstances were attributable to the applicant. The court must do justice between the parties in the circumstances as they have arisen.
4. The magistrates failed to consider fault, the effect of the severe weather, the absence of both the defendant and her solicitor, and the resulting inability to give evidence or challenge the prosecution witnesses. The presence of the prosecution witnesses did not establish that the defendant’s difficulties were exaggerated or unjustified.
5. There was no evidence of repeated non-attendance, exceptional delay, or significant prejudice to the witnesses from a short adjournment. Had the relevant considerations been balanced, the refusal could not reasonably have been made.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal by case stated and remitted the matter to the magistrates for trial on a convenient date.
• North West Wales Magistrates’ Court: Refused an adjournment and decided to proceed with the trial in the absence of the defendant and her solicitor.