London Borough of Bromley (R) v Bromley Magistrates Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MITTING |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 432 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 11 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | C0/1009/2010 |
[2011] EWHC 432 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Mr Justice Mitting
Mr Justice Davis
C0/1009/2010
MISS ZENTLER-MUNROE (instructed by HZMS CUFFARO & NICHOLAS) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR JUSTIVE DAVIS: This is a claim for judicial review relating to a decision in the Bromley Magistrates' Court whereby an information was dismissed on 26 November 2009 for want of attendance by a prosecutor. Permission was initially refused on the papers, but in the event permission was granted by the Divisional Court on 23 November 2010.
One point that had been raised at that particular stage was that it had been suggested that the claimant had an alternative remedy, namely to issue a fresh summons the day after 26 November 2009. Suffice it to say the time periods are such that, on the facts here, that would not have been a possibility available to the claimant.
The background is this. Mr Christopher Stephens, who is an interested party in this claim and who has been served with all the papers and who has not attended, was summonsed to attend Bromley Magistrates' Court on 3 November 2008 to answer an allegation under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to the effect that he had failed to notify a change of circumstances and had wrongly benefited to the tune of some thousands of pounds. Mr Stephens failed to attend the court on 3 November 2008. No warrant was issued on that occasion, and the case was adjourned by the justices until 17 December 2008, when again Mr Stephens did not attend and on that occasion a warrant was issued.
The warrant was executed on 26 November 2009. On that morning, the claimant, the London Borough of Bromley, was informed that Mr Stephens had been arrested, was in custody and was at the Magistrates' Court. There was then discussion between the representatives of the claimant and the solicitors the claimant regularly instructed in such matters. Until being told that morning of Mr Stephens' arrest, neither the claimant nor the claimant's solicitors could have known that the matter would be before the court that particular day. According to evidence filed on behalf of the claimant, it was told that the court would in any event not be ready to deal with the case until later on during the day.
The claimant's solicitors took steps to instruct counsel. Clearly this had to be done in something of a hurry given the short notice, but in the end counsel's chambers were contacted and it was arranged that counsel would attend on behalf of the claimant at the Magistrates' Court. Due to the shortness of time it was made clear that counsel would not be able to arrive until after lunch.
According to a statement of the solicitor acting for the claimant in that matter, she telephoned the court and informed the court that counsel would arrive "at about 2 o'clock." In the event, counsel's train only arrived at the local station at 2.20, and indeed counsel had notified her Clerk of that point over the telephone, counsel herself only consequently attending court a minute or two thereafter. According to her statement she was, as she arrived at court, speaking on her mobile phone with her solicitors to discuss the details of the case.
In the event, it appears that the matter had been called on before the justices at around 2.10. The justices dismissed it for want of prosecution. Counsel arrived a few minutes later, as I have indicated, to find out that that was the position and the matter was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Tonie Jarman
...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: "One well appreciates the desire for a Magi......
-
DPP v Stafford Magistrates' Court Dennis Weston (Interested Party)
...All ER 129…. We also think that the power conferred by section 15 is not one conferred for punitive purposes." 13 In London Borough of Bromley v Bromley Magistrates' Court (2011) 175 JP 175, the defendant was arrested on a warrant for previously having failed to attend the hearing. The loca......
-
DPP v Gowing
...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 his judgment at paragraph 14 emphasised the need ......