A youth was charged with causing grievous bodily harm. His trial was fixed for 11 October 1988. On the date of trial, the prosecution applied for an adjournment on the grounds that, if the trial proceeded immediately and the magistrates decided that the victim did not have sufficient understanding to take the oath by reason of his age, unsworn testimony would, on the law as it then stood, have to be corroborated by other independent evidence which the prosecution could not produce. The prosecution pointed out that the law would be changed the following day and the law requiring corroboration would be abolished. The trial was adjourned ‘in the interests of justice’. The applicant applied to the Divisional Court for an order quashing the magistrates’ decision.
Held: The court may grant an adjournment for ‘extraneous reasons’ thereby causing a defendant to suffer from the consequences of a change in the law. ‘If for extraneous listing reasons a trial is fixed for the day after rather than the day before a change in the relevant law, we find it difficult to see how a defendant could feel any legitimate sense of grievance, or be able to say that he had been unfairly prejudiced. He might well be regarded as unlucky to have got the later date rather than the earlier, and equally a person whose trial commenced the day before might be regarded as lucky to have his trial when he did, but luck or chance seems to be a rather unsatisfactory foundation for the suggested right of the defendant. Again, if the prosecution in a case sought and obtained an adjournment for quite extraneous reasons (eg the non-availability of an expert through no one’s fault) and the trial then started after rather than before a relevant change in the law, it is difficult to see what injustice would be done to the defendant, nor (to our minds) could it be suggested that, despite a perfectly good reason for an adjournment, it should nevertheless be refused so as to preserve the defendant’s suggested right to be tried on the law as it stood when the trial would otherwise have been held. Yet the result in these examples would be precisely the same as in the present case. In short, in the absence of special circumstances it is difficult to see why in justice a defendant should have the suggested right.’ ‘To our minds, the arguments against accepting some unqualified inalienable right or entitlement in a defendant to be tried on the law as it stands on the day which happens to be fixed for his trial, so that it cannot be adjourned if the law will change, are overwhelming. However, that is not the end of the matter. Quite apart from rights vested in the defendant are the duties and responsibilities of the court. It is common ground that it would be unjudicial for a court (as in R v Boteler (1864) 4B and S 959, 122 ER 718) to refuse to apply the substantive law on the grounds that the court regarded that law as unfair or wrong. In the present case the magistrates concluded, in effect, that the law as it stood on 11 October 1988 would not do justice (or as much justice) as the law on the following day; and on that basis adjourned the trial. We consider that it must follow that what the magistrates were doing was to pass a qualitative judgment on the existing law and finding it wanting in justice (or sufficient justice) acted as they did. They were therefore doing essentially the same thing as the magistrates did in R v Boteler, namely choosing not to apply the law in force on the basis that they considered that it was lacking in justice. The fact that they did so because they preferred the law as it would be on the following day seems to us to be neither here not there, for the fact remains that the trial did not proceed because the magistrates felt that the law in force on the day fixed for it would not do proper justice. That in our view is not a legitimate basis for ordering an adjournment.’
Judges:
Saville J
Citations:
[1990] 1 QB 253
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – North British Housing Association Ltd v Matthews, Same v Others CA 21-Dec-2004
In each case the tenants requested adjournment of the possession proceedings brought against them by the landlord for arrears of rent to allow them time to bring the arrears below the level at which a possession order could be made. In each case it . .
Distinguished – Kingcastle Limited v Owen-Owen CA 19-Feb-1999
In a claim for possession of residential premises, the defendant who was the gay partner of the deceased tenant, to have succeeded to his partner’s tenancy as a member of his family.
Held: A court may adjourn a case pending the outcome of an . .
Cited – Regina v Dudley Magistrates Court ex parte Hollis; Robert v Same Admn 25-Nov-1997
An award of costs is inevitable after a finding of statutory nuisance and such costs include cost of establishing the nuisance. ‘The wide discretion as to whether to grant an adjournment conferred by section 10 and section 54 of the Magistrates’ . .
Cited – City Council of Bristol v Lovell HL 26-Feb-1998
A County Court may stay a right to buy application by the tenant, even though terms had been agreed, in order to await the result of court proceedings for possession against the secure misbehaving tenant. A court’s case management powers can be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.221435
