The defendant faced a charge of causing actual bodily harm to a 19 year-old. There was an eye witness, who was no doubt a friend of the complainant, aged 18. The defendant was 15. When first listed for trial neither prosecution witnesses attended on time, and nor did the claimant. The complainant was in bed but there was no information about the eye witness. The claimant not having arrived, an adjournment was granted. Both complainant and the claimant did arrive later in the day. The witness gave no explanation of his absence. The trial was re-listed. Again the complainant and the witness did not attend, both being at work and the excuse was that they had thought that the trial was due to be heard the following day. That excuse was later discovered to be almost certainly untrue.
Held: The court did not accept that it was correct for the district judge to have adjourned the matter.
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 2584 (Admin)
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – W, Regina (on the Application of) v Camberwell Youth Court and Another Admn 10-Sep-2004
The defendant sought a Judicial review of the magistrates’ decision to adjourn case at request of prosecutor. The prosecutor had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations, and de-warned its witnesses before the date fixed for trial.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188317
