DPP v Stafford Magistrates' Court Dennis Weston (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Goldring,Mr Justice Fulford |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 617 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/6734/2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 07 February 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 617 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Administrative Court
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Goldring
and
Mr Justice Fulford
Case No: CO/6734/2012
and
Mr J Boyd (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
(As Approved)
Thursday 7 February 2013
This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking a mandatory order compelling Stafford Magistrates' Court to hear and determine a charge made against Mr Dennis Weston (the interested party). Permission has been granted by Kenneth Parker J.
The essential submission is that no reasonable tribunal could in the circumstances which had arisen have dismissed the charge. In short, the court did so because of the failure of the prosecutor to attend.
The Relevant Facts
The charge related to an allegation of minor criminal damage. The context was a neighbour dispute in which the defendant and interested party, Dennis Weston, and his brother Graham, asserted that some land belonged to them while their neighbours, Nicholas and Deborah Mortimore, said it did not.
The allegation was that on 22 January 2012 Dennis Weston threw, among other things, a wooden pallet which hit and caused damage to a car belonging to Mrs Mortimore's daughter. At the time of the alleged incident Graham Weston (the brother) faced an allegation of assaulting Mr Mortimore. Although it was much in dispute, there was evidence supporting the charge. It is fair, too, to say that on the prosecution version of events it was an incident in an escalating dispute which needed to be dealt with.
On 14 February 2012 the case was listed at Stoke Magistrates' Court. Dennis Weston pleaded not guilty. It was adjourned for trial to 5 April 2012 to Stafford Magistrates' Court. It was not to be heard at Stoke because the court was being refurbished.
The Events of 5 April 2012
On 5 April 2012 the case was called on at 10am. The witnesses, the defendant and his solicitor were present. There was no prosecutor. In error the CPS office had sent her to Stoke. When she arrived at Stoke she realised that something was wrong because no one in the case had appeared. She contacted the CPS Stoke office and was informed that the case was to be heard in Stafford. She asked her office to telephone Stafford to inform them of what had happened, that she was leaving Stoke, and for her apologies to be conveyed to Stafford. This was done.
The journey from Stoke to Stafford has variously been estimated at 25 to 40 minutes. I shall take it at the higher figure for present purposes.
The detail of what occurred is set out by the claimant as follows:
"11. At 9.58am the clerk to the justices entered Stafford Magistrates' Court's 'ushers reception area' and overheard a telephone conversation between an usher and a member of staff at Stoke Magistrates' Court. According to the clerk's note, 'She (ie the usher) was taking a call from North Staffs and relayed that Fiona Cortese was the Prosecutor and had gone to Stoke. She was just leaving at that time' (see exhibit FC/2 at page 55)…
12. The clerk then entered court, as did the justices. The Interested Party's solicitor invited the justices to dismiss the prosecution due to the absence of the prosecutor. The justices' clerk then 'relayed all the information' she had to the justices to assist them in deciding whether to dismiss the charge…
The justices then retired to consider their decision. At 10.25am the justices returned to court and dismissed the charge. The stated reasons for doing so are as follows:
'We have considered an application under section 15 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980. The trial fixing form is clear and we dismiss this case for want of prosecution. We are a North Staffs Bench who have travelled to get here on time. The witnesses have all arrived on time from North Staffs. There is no explanation why the prosecution have gone to Fenton. Sanctions would have been considered against the defendant had he not arrived on time. We are satisfied that this case is not wrongly listed.'
13. At around 10.30am the prosecutor entered the court building and was told the charge had been dismissed due to her absence."
In response to the claimant's letter before claim this was said in a letter dated 16 May 2012 on behalf of the Magistrates Court:
"I am not aware of any requirement upon the court to have to make enquiries regarding the reason for a prosecutor not having attended a trial any more than it could be expected to do so in relation to an absent defendant. The Legal Adviser had gone out of court and is seen on CCTV at 9.59am speaking to Court Ushers trying to find out whether the prosecutor had now attended or if any reason was known for the prosecutor's absence. I require the Magistrates and Legal Adviser to be in court room at 10am promptly to show efficiency and to set the standard that everyone should be in court at 10am (see paragraph 10 of exhibit CM/5).
…. The Court had received no information from the CPS and only a confusing message relayed by one set of court admin staff to the court admin staff at Stafford as to the prosecutor's whereabouts and with no estimated time of arrival. That may be partly the fault of court admin staff in relaying or recording a message between themselves but it was the responsibility of the CPS to contact the court staff at Stafford and to make sure that an accurate message as to the prosecutor's whereabouts and estimated time of arrival at Stafford was given. That did not happen and so the Magistrates used such information as they had and acted reasonably in all of the above circumstances."
The Relevant Law
In dismissing the charge the magistrates purported to exercise the power that they have under section 15(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. So far as is relevant, that provides:
"(1) Where at the time and place appointed for the trial and adjourned trial of an information the accused appears or is brought before the court and the prosecutor does not appear, the court may dismiss the information or, if evidence has been received on a previous occasion, proceed in the absence of the prosecutor."
Section 10(1) provides:
"A magistrates' court may at any time, whether before or after beginning to try an information, adjourn the trial, and may do so, notwithstanding anything in this Act,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Tonie Jarman
...the prosecution for its inefficiency (see R v Hendon Justices above; Director of Public Prosecutions v Stratford Magistrates Court [2013] EWHC 617 (Admin); London Borough of Bromley v Bromley Magistrates' Court [2011] EWHC 432 (Admin)). In the latter decision Davis J said at paragraph 12: "......
-
DPP v Gowing
...ex p. the Director of Public Prosecutions [1993] 96 Cr.App.R 227; the Director of Public Prosecutions v Stafford Magistrates' Court [2013] EWHC 617 (Admin); and London Borough of Bromley v Bromley Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA 432 (Admin). In the latter decision, Davis J as he then was in ......