Stavrinou, Regina (on the Application Of) v Horseferry Road Justices: Admn 22 Feb 2006

The claimant asked for judicial review of a decision to adjourn the case against him on a charge of driving with excess alcohol. The district judge had already insisted on the date fixed for the hearing as against the defendant, but then adjourned when prosecution witnesses did not appear. The court did not allow defence counsel to finish addressing them before adjourning.
Held: the court expressed considerable surprise that both the magistartes and the CPS were represented by the same counsel. The magistrates adjourned on that basis that the defence was at fault when they were not, and therefore the magistrates failed to consider the consequences to the defendant in costs. In any event the prosecutions analyst had failed to attend a second time. ‘The prosecution in reality was being given a leeway denied to the defence with no certain prospects of costs redress.’ In the circumstances the proceedings were stayed permanently.


Ousely J


[2006] EWHC 566 (Admin)




CitedEssen v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 12-May-2005
. .
CitedRegina 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Magistrates

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240063