The defendant appealed against a refusal by the magistrates to allow him to re-open his mode of trial hearing so as to allow him to elect trial at the Crown Court. She was Iranian and non-English speaker, though with a translator. The magistrates had found that she had understood the nature and consequences of the decision she made.
Judges:
May LJ, Harrison J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 45 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 17 18
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Craske, ex parte Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis QBD 1957
The court has discretion to permit a defendant a change of election for trial. Devlin J said: ‘I do not think that means that once the procedure is set in motion, the court has ineluctably to allow the wheels to revolve without any power to stop . .
Cited – Regina v Southampton Justices, ex parte Briggs QBD 1972
Lord Widgery CJ, with whom Ashworth and Griffiths JJ agreed, stated that, in determining a request by a defendant to withdraw consent to summary jurisdiction, the justices should exercise their jurisdiction ‘on how they see the broad justice of the . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham Justices, ex parte Hodgson 1985
McCullough J said that a defendant must ‘understand the nature and significance’ of his choice of venue for his trial. The central factor was the state of mind of the defendant at the time he made his election: ‘Did he properly understand the nature . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425317
