The claimant had faced an application for a closure order on his premises for their use for unlawful drugs. The matter was adjourned twice at his request. On the third occasion he sought to rely upon the need for a closure order to be confirmed with 14 days to say that the order must lapse.
Held: The Hooer case did not say that such applications could never be adjourned beyind the fourteen day limit. It allowed that exceptional circumstances could justify an extended adjournment. Exceptional circumstances might often be rare circumstances but exceptional did not mean rare, in this context meant circumstances so compelling as to take them outside the ambit of the section. The case had been in the interests of justice, and the magistrates had that power.
Judges:
Keene LJ, Poole J
Citations:
Times 26-Oct-2005
Statutes:
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 1, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 54
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hooper QBD 16-Feb-2005
The police applied to the court for a closure order in respect of premises they said were being used for the sale of Class A drugs. The tenant sought an adjournment, which was granted as were two later applications. On the last hearing, the police . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Deaprtment ex parte Swati CA 1986
A notice refusing leave to a visitor to enter which simply gave as the reasons:- ‘I am not satisfied that you are genuinely seeking entry only for this limited period.’ was sufficient compliance with the duty to give reasons for the decision imposed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.231502
