Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 184 (Nov)
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Judge:

Gage LJ and Openshaw J

Representation Jemma Levinson (instructed by Hallmark Atkinson Wynter) for the claimants.
  Teresa Hay (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Crawley) for the prosecution.
Judgment Dates: 15 November 2005

Catchwords

Magistrates - Adjournment - Discretion of district judge - Application by prosecution to adjourn having conceded failure to comply with disclosure obligations - District judge granting adjournment - Whether exercise of discretion irrational or perverse.

The Case

The decision of the district judge to grant an adjournment on the application of the prosecution who had admittedly failed to comply with the obligation of disclosure to the defence, was neither irrational nor perverse. He had carefully considered all the factors and had reached the conclusions that the prosecution had provided an explanation of why certain aspects of the case had not been dealt with, that an adjournment would not result in prejudice to the claimants who would still be able to have a fair trial, and that it was in the public interest that there should be an adjournment

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.