The defendant appealed a decision of the magistrates to adjourn his trial for a breathaliser offence when the Crown Prosecution Service had not warned officers to attend to give evidence. On this application, the CPS filed an acknowledgment, did not attend the hearing or seek to justify its failure to warn the police officers. No excuse was given and no explanation as to why no steps had been taken to warn the relevant witnesses to attend.
Held: The court should be careful not to give the impression to prosecuting authorities that inefficiency which leads to a failure to take steps which ought to have been taken and the absence of which result in an application for an adjournment is something which the courts will tolerate. Mitchell J said: ‘Furthermore, these reasons were given in the absence of any ‘rigorous scrutiny’ of the application. The longer courts tolerate the sort of inefficiency which seems, in each of these cases, to be the explanation for the failure of the witnesses to attend court on the date fixed for the hearing, the longer it will continue. To tolerate it is to encourage it.’
Judges:
Mitchell J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 708 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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.
Road Traffic, Crime
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.185594
