On its first application the CPS requested that the trial date be vacated because they had not received a full file of evidence. That application was refused. The case remained listed for trial that afternoon. In the afternoon the prosecution was represented by a different prosecutor who successfully renewed the application for an adjournment. The application was identical to the application made in the morning.
Held: The decision was quashed. The magistrates were in error in revisiting their decision to adjourn. Sullivan J said that the issue for the district judge was whether there had been a change of relevant circumstances between the morning and afternoon. The prosecution had conceded that there was no change of circumstances. Latham LJ agreed.
Judges:
Latham LJ, Sullivan J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 695 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Jones v South East Surrey Local Justice Area Admn 12-Mar-2010
The defendant sought judicial review of a decision of the magistrates to adjourn a case where, on the day before, a differently constitued bench had refused an adjournment requested by the prosecution. On the first occasion the prosecutor had not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates, Criminal Practice
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.241731
