Thomas LJ said: ‘When the magistrates were faced with the application for an amendment, the law was clear and remains clear. The principles are set out in Section 123 and 127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act [1980] and in the single decision of this court to which it is necessary to refer, R v Scunthorpe Justices, ex parte McPhee and Gallagher [1998] 162 JPR 635.’
As to the excuse that the courts were busy: ‘It may also have been the case that the lists in the court at Chorley are very busy. It would be somewhat surprising to find that the Court is so busy that a case has to go off from from October 2007 to February 2008. That is no doubt a matter that can be carefully looked into by the presiding judges of the circuit. However, the fact that a trial date has been fixed and the court is busy highlights the real problem in this case and why in my view it was not in the interests of justice to grant the amendment.
Modern case management set out in the criminal procedure rules requires a proper attention to case management duties. There was no excuse whatsoever of counsel who has appeared for the CPS has proffered none for the failure to raise the application to make the amendment of the case management hearing on 3 July 2007; given that it was over 5 months after the charge and the case was a simple one. Even if that could be excused, there is no excuse for the failure to apply to the Court for a short hearing to determine the question of the amendment once the point was appreciated on 7 August 2007.’ and ‘However, it is a clear and longstanding principle of our courts that justice must be delivered with promptitude. What has changed is the obligation of the parties to ensure that the Court, whose resources are limited, are able to use those resourcess efficiently by the proper conduct of case management under the criminal procedure rules.
The reason, therefore, it seems to me why it is over all in the interests of justice to decide the case in the way in which I consider it should be decided, is that there was a fundamental failure on the part of the Crown properly to have regard in their preparation of this case to the observance of the criminal procedure rules, particularly in the case management hearing and to the interests of justice, those interests are best served in this case by disallowing the amendment to the charge.’
Thomas LJ, Burton J
[2009] EWHC 2354 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates Courts Act 1980 123 127
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Scunthorpe Justices ex parte McPhee and Gallagher Admn 24-Feb-1998
The defendant faced a charge of robbery. More than six months after the alleged offence the prosecution sought to add alternate charges including one of common assault. The magistrates declined jurisdiction on the ground that, more than six months . .
Cited by:
Cited – Crann v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 27-Feb-2013
The defendant appealed by case stated against an order allowing the amendment of an information against him. He was first accused of failing to provide a specimen of breath for testing after being stopped and suspected of driving with excess . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.376007