Director of Public Prosecutions v Richardson
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE BEATSON
- MR JUSTICE SIMON
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal centers around Norfolk County Justices' refusal to grant an adjournment in a case involving assault by beating, faced with multiple delays and video link issues. The Divisional Court held that the justices acted within their discretion, taking into account delay impacts and fairness, eventually dismissing the appeal.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE SIMON: This is an appeal by way of case stated by the Norfolk County Justices and arises out of the decision to refuse the prosecution's application to adjourn. The respondent, whom I shall refer to as the defendant, was charged with an offence of assault by beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 . The offence was alleged to have taken place in Diss on 20 August 2012.
The chronology, as it emerges from the case stated, begins in September 2012. On 4 September, the defendant entered a not guilty plea and the trial was fixed for 7 December. Two days before, on 5 December, the trial was vacated because the court had been double-booked. However, the case was left in the list for 7 December for the purpose of refixing the date for trial. On 7 December, the trial was refixed as a high priority for 5 April 2013. The trial was ineffective on that date because both a police witness and the defendant were in hospital. On 11 April, the trial was refixed for 16 July. On 16 July, the trial was unable to proceed because it had been double-listed with another high priority case, in which the defendant was in custody.
It appears that the complainant had attended court in Norwich on at least 16 July. On 20 September, an application was made for the complainant to give evidence by video link from Cheltenham Magistrates' Court, which was more convenient for him to get to. The trial had been refixed for hearing on 4 November.
In the event, it could not go ahead because it was not possible to make a direct link from Norwich Magistrates' Court to Cheltenham Magistrates' Court in order to enable a video link to be established. Special arrangements needed to be made for a bridging link and this required 24 hours' notice. The magistrates, who were plainly concerned at this turn of events, asked their legal adviser to check this and the answer provided confirmation that a bridging link was required and could not be set up in a day.
The prosecution applied for an adjournment, pointing out that the CPS had been granted permission to adduce the complainant's evidence by video link, had made enquiries of Gloucester Magistrates' Court and had, on 22 July, made a provisional booking for the use of the video link at Cheltenham Magistrates' Court. The CPS expected Norwich Magistrates' Court to arrangement the logistics. Counsel for the prosecution submitted that there had been a technical difficulty which was not the fault of the pr