Shannon Alice Saunders v Bristol Magistrates Court & Anor.

Applications to adjourn a summary trial require rigorous scrutiny and cogent reasons. The court must consider the likely consequences and length of the adjournment, the reason for it, the gravity of any party’s default, the listing history and the need to deal with cases efficiently and expeditiously. A prosecution default does not automatically prevent an adjournment, but a successful application will generally require a clear and adequate explanation, particularly where procedural directions have been breached. Apparent bias may arise from the combination of inadequate reasons and comments suggesting that the defendant should not escape conviction because of an administrative error. Where an adjournment was not lawfully open to the magistrates, the decision should be quashed. If the prosecution has expressly stated that it cannot prove the case without the missing witness, the proper remedy may be a direction to acquit.

The claimant faced a charge under section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 after a custody doctor was unable to obtain a blood sample. The magistrates’ court had directed the prosecution to serve the doctor’s evidence and confirm witness availability before trial.

The prosecution failed to serve the evidence as directed and failed to warn the doctor to attend. On the day before trial, the magistrates granted an adjournment, stating that it was in the interests of justice and referring to the failure as an administrative error. A justice also said that the defendant could not get away with it because of that error.

The claimant sought judicial review, alleging inadequate reasons, apparent bias, consideration of an irrelevant matter and irrationality. The central issues were whether the decision to adjourn was vitiated by public law error and, if so, what remedy should follow.

1. Decision unlawful. Applications to adjourn summary trials require rigorous scrutiny and cogent reasons. The magistrates stated the correct overarching test, namely whether an adjournment was in the interests of justice, but failed to explain why that test was satisfied. Their reasons did not demonstrate consideration of the relevant factors identified in [2009] EWHC 3017 (Admin) and Crim PD 24C.1, including the prosecution’s procedural default, its gravity, the consequences of delay and the listing history.
2. Apparent bias. A lay justice’s private deliberative comment might, viewed alone, have been an imprecise reference to the seriousness of the offence. In context, however, the inadequate reasons, the comment that the defendant could not get away with it because of an administrative error, and the experienced legal adviser’s reaction would lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility of apparent bias.
3. Adjournment not open on the facts. Prosecution culpability does not automatically bar an adjournment. The gravity of the breach is important, and a successful application will generally require a clear and adequate explanation for the default. The prosecution had failed both to serve the doctor’s evidence and to warn him, and had offered no explanation despite asserting that his evidence was essential. The circumstances were materially similar to Visvaratnam, where the adjournment was held to be wrong.
4. Remedy. The decision of 30 September 2021 was quashed. Since the prosecution had expressly maintained that it could not prove the case without the doctor, it would be unfair to order a trial without his evidence. The case was remitted to the magistrates with a direction to acquit the claimant.

• Administrative Court: Permission was initially refused on the papers, then granted by Steyn J on 15 March 2022. An interim injunction restrained the magistrates’ court from hearing the trial. Mr Justice Chamberlain allowed the judicial review, quashed the adjournment decision and remitted the case with a direction to acquit.