The defendant sought certiorari of a refusal of an adjournment of his hearing by the respondent. His defence team had requested an adjournment for a psychiatric report. The court had said such a report would not go as to mens rea.
Held: The divisional court did have power to review a decision of the court to refuse an adjournment. The court should generally complete a hearing after an application is refused, and the defendant should then pursue an appeal. The context of an armed service where the defendant may be posted anywhere at short notice increases the need to avoid adjournments. Nevertheless, and allowing also for the absence of a power of a court martial to grant bail pending an appeal, the submission that the court should in principle be more lothe to interfere in relation to a decision to refuse an adjournment however illegal made by a Court Martial rather than any other legal tribunal, fails.
Citations:
[1998] EWHC Admin 567, [1998] EWHC Admin 568
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands, Ingram); Regina v Harrow Youth Court (ex parte Prussia) Admn 10-Feb-1997
The power to adjourn a trial is conferred upon Justices by statute. The divisional court will intervene where defendants have been deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The decision whether to grant an adjournment is not a mechanical . .
Cited – Government of America v Bowe PC 1990
Where a magistrates or similar court refuse a defence application for an adjournment, generally speaking, the entire case, including all the evidence which the parties wish to adduce, should be presented to the Magistrate before either side applies . .
Cited – In re Smalley HL 1985
Challenge by a surety to an estreatment of his recognizance was not a matter relating to a trial on indictment for the purpose of section 29(3) because it did not affect the conduct of the trial. A sensible legislative purpose can be seen for . .
Cited – Regina v Birmingham City Council ex parte Ferrero Ltd CA 1993
The case concerned the prohibition in respect of chocolate eggs containing plastic toys one of which had been swallowed by and choked to death a small boy, and a power in the interests of public safety to prohibit the sale of particular goods, which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Judicial Review
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138688