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

A material mistake of fact may justify judicial review of a magistrates’ court’s refusal to adjourn a criminal trial where the parties share an interest in achieving the correct result, the mistake concerns an established and objectively verifiable fact, the applicant was not responsible for it, and it materially influenced the decision. The remedy remains exceptional and does not dilute the rigorous approach to trial adjournments. The court may quash the refusal and remit the case where the mistake caused unfairness and no other effective remedy exists.

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought judicial review of a decision by Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 5 November 2019 refusing to adjourn Scott Roe’s trial for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The refusal proceeded on the mistaken understanding that the two prosecution witnesses had not attended court. They had in fact attended and were available to give evidence. The prosecution consequently offered no evidence and the charge was dismissed. The magistrates’ court accepted that the decision had been based entirely on a material mistake of fact. The issue was whether that mistake justified judicial review and what remedy should follow.

1. The claim succeeded. The court quashed the decision refusing an adjournment and remitted the matter to Leeds Magistrates’ Court for the merits to be resolved at trial.
2. A material mistake of fact, leading to unfairness, can justify judicial review of a magistrates’ court’s determination of an application to adjourn criminal proceedings. The requirements identified in R (DPP) v Sunderland Magistrates’ Court [2018] EWHC 229 (Admin) included a shared interest in achieving the correct result; an objectively verifiable mistake concerning an existing fact; absence of responsibility for the mistake on the part of the person relying on it; and a material, though not necessarily decisive, role in the reasoning.
3. Those requirements were satisfied. The witnesses’ non-attendance was an objectively verifiable mistake. The DPP was not responsible for it. The District Judge confirmed that the mistake was decisive in refusing the adjournment. The parties’ shared interest arose from the overriding objective in the Criminal Procedure Rules and the applicable Criminal Practice Direction to deal with criminal cases justly and on a correct factual basis.
4. The interested party appeared to know that the witnesses were present and ready to give evidence, yet did nothing to correct the false premise before the court. Following Sunderland, that conduct was characterised as a flagrant breach of the duty owed to the court.
5. The circumstances were expected to be rare. The decision did not dilute the rigorous approach to applications to adjourn magistrates’ court trials, reaffirmed by CPS v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108 (Admin) and Balogun v DPP [2010] EWHC 799 (Admin).

Not stated in the judgment.