[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Anderson, R (On the Application Of) v Guildford Magistrates Court [2015] EWHC 2454 (Admin) (23 June 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/2454.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 2454 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		23 June 2015

1. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: This is an application for permission to pursue judicial review. It is in fact a rolled-up hearing referred to this court by Mrs Justice Laing. It challenges a decision at the Guildford Magistrates. They refused to vacate the trial date fixed for 29 June. The CPS have appeared as an interested party this morning. They take a neutral position in relation to this judicial review and it is right to point out that they did not oppose the application to vacate the hearing when it was made to the magistrates.
2. The facts are briefly these: the claimant is alleged to have assaulted his partner on 3 April this year. She alleged that he hit her six or seven times, resulting in a seven inch laceration to the top of her head. He strongly disputes that. He says she was in an alcoholic state and fell down some stairs and struck her head against the skirting board.
3. At a pre-trial hearing on 16 April he was represented by a duty solicitor, entered a not guilty plea and the trial was fixed for 29 June for three hours. He says he was unhappy with that outcome. He went to see his own solicitors. They had given him advice about the evidence that he may wish to adduce for the purposes of a trial. He wants evidence from a pathologist and from a toxicologist: the pathologist to deal with the question whether the injury caused to the partner was more consistent with punching or more consistent with his evidence that she had hit her head against the skirting board; a toxicologist because he says she was regularly drinking and taking drugs and that she was not a reliable witness and would not have been a reliable witness on the night in question.
4. In addition, there is other evidence that the defence had sought, including the identity of a taxi driver who had driven her a little before the incident took place, and also certain bad character evidence, both in relation to the complainant, and also a potential witness the prosecution may wish to call who was someone the complainant had contacted later on that evening after the incident had occurred.
5. The application was made on 1 June. It is to be noted that by then, in fact almost two week before then, a defence case statement had been served, much earlier than was required under the rules, and indeed, it was much fuller than would normally be the case.
6. The principal grounds on which the defendant sought to vacate the hearing was the need for further disclosure and the inability to have a fair trial on 29 June. In addition, the defendant submitted that the trial might take six hours, there was concern that the case could not have been heard in the time available on that day.
7. The court refused the application. The reasons given are, in general terms, the interests of justice but it appears that at that time the lay justices spelt out in more detail why they reached the conclusion they had. It was because the defence had taken a long time to make the application and because the justices did not believe that the evidence from the pathologist or the toxicologist would be of any value. The justices also emphasized, perfectly properly, the importance of complying with the criminal procedure rules and in particular the first rule which emphasises that there should be no undue delay and the trial should be conducted in an efficient manner. They were concerned that if it was adjourned it might displace another case.
8. This court has said time after time that it is very much a matter for the magistrates to decide whether or not, in circumstances like this, the trial date should be vacated and it is perfectly proper for magistrates to take a robust view about that. Very often adjournments will run counter to the important objectives in Rule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. At the same time, as was emphasized in fact by this court in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions V Petrie [2015] EWHC 48, at [1]:

i. "The principles of efficiency expedition and the discouragement of delay are all adjuncts of dealing with cases justly. Justice must of course be the overriding consideration."

9. We have no doubt in this case that it would not be just to conduct the trial on 29 June. The defendant put forward cogent reasons why some of this evidence was required. He must be given the proper opportunity to adduce that evidence; it is not for the justices in advance to say that it is unlikely to be helpful. Moreover, there had been no primary disclosure even at the time the application for vacation was refused. That was not until 8 June. That is not a criticism of the prosecution. I am simply pointing that out as a fact. There still has not been secondary disclosure.
10. We are told today by Miss Williamson, counsel for the prosecution, who has been very helpful and assisted the court, that some of the material which has been sought cannot be provided, in particular the identity of the taxi driver. Some has now been provided, in particular, the negatives, I think it is, of the photographs of the injuries sustained by the partner. The original photographs have not been provided. That can be done relatively soon. The medical records sought will not be provided. There was not a medical report in relation to the injury itself and the prosecution take the view, quite properly it seems to us, that if any other medical reports are sought, then an application will have to be made under Section 8 before that is done. That would of course necessarily be the case if, as is likely, the partner refused to provide those reports. As I understand it, the bad character evidence has not yet been provided. That is being investigated further.
11. In a sense all this is immaterial because I am satisfied that at the time when the decision was made it was not, with respect to the magistrates, a proper decision, even having regard to the need for them to take robust case management decisions.
12. The subsequent developments indicate that it is still not possible at this stage for a fair trial to take place on 29 June. We understand that there is to be a hearing this Friday. It may be that evidential issues can be resolved at that date, although even if that is so, presumably there will still need to be time for the consequences of whatever rulings are made by the court on Friday to be implemented and carried into effect. It is quite unrealistic to think that a fair trial could be heard next Monday.
13. For those reasons we would grant permission for judicial review and we would quash the decision which had refused to vacate this trial and direct that the trial does need to be vacated to a time fixed by the magistrates when it can be properly and justly held.
14. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I agree. That is subject to your undertaking to pay the requisite fee, so your undertaking or solicitors' undertaking to pay the requisite fee once permission is granted.
15. MS CARPENTER: Yes, my Lords.
16. Could I ask for costs to be taxed?
17. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You want costs out of central funds?
18. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: All right. There is no opposition to that, I take it?
19. MS WILLIAMSON: No, my Lords.
20. MS CARPENTER: My Lords, there was a draft order submitted in the bundle to assist.
21. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: Where do we find that?
22. MS CARPENTER: I apologise. I cannot see the page number.
23. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Paragraphs 2 and 4 are inappropriate, are they not?
24. MS CARPENTER: Yes.
25. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Number 2 is quite unnecessary.
26. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: Yes, it is unnecessary.
27. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: It is not a question of the defendant paying the claimants' costs.
28. MS CARPENTER: Of course.
29. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: It is costs out of central funds are going to be assessed, to be assessed if not agreed.
30. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: I think I would prefer rather than, "when all necessary preparations will have been undertaken", "when the trial can be conducted justly", otherwise the parties can contend that they need longer time and that they are not ready.
31. Two goes. "At a time when the trial can be conducted justly."
32. MS CARPENTER: I am grateful.
33. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: We must add in to the paragraphs which say that permission is granted, "and subject to an undertaking to pay the necessary costs." That comes under "permission granted" and then the rest follows.
34. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: Is that all right?
35. MS CARPENTER: I am grateful, my Lord.