Millar’s (Darren) Application and Director of Public Prosecutions Applications
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Morgan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] NIQB 57 |
| Date | 29 May 2013 |
| Year | 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2013] NIQB 57
Ref:
MOR8891
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
29/05/2013
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Millar’s (Darren) Application and Director of Public Prosecutions Applications
[2013] NIQB 57
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY DARREN MILLAR TO APPLY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF DISTRICT JUDGE (MC) HAMILL
MADE ON 12 NOVEMBER 2012
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF
DISTRICT JUDGE (MC) PERRY ON 19 OCTOBER 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF
ANTRIM YOUTH COURT ON 12 DECEMBER 2011
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, Coghlin LJ and O’Hara J
________
MORGAN LCJ
[1] These three applications for judicial review were heard together as they raised
issues about the correct approach by a Magistrates’ Court in determining whether to
grant or refuse an adjournment application. In Millar’s application the applicant
challenges a decision by District Judge (MC) Hamill, sitting at Newtownards
Magistrates’ Court on 12 November 2012, whereby he granted an application by the
Public Prosecution Service to vacate the contest date for the hearing of the charges
against the applicant. The DPP’s application for judicial review in Public Prosecution
Service v Steele (“the Steele case”) relates to a decision by District Judge (MC) Perry,
sitting at Magherafelt Magistrates’ Court on 19 October 2011, whereby he refused an
application by the Public Prosecution Service to either adjourn or part-hear a case
2
listed for contested hearing that day. The DPP’s application for judicial review in
Public Prosecution Service v H (“the H case”) relates to a decision by Antrim Youth
Court on 12 December 2011 whereby it refused an application by the Public
Prosecution Service to adjourn a case listed for a contested hearing that day. Mr
McAlister appeared for the DPP, Mr McGleenan appeared with Mr Atchison for
Millar and Ms Murnaghan for the district judges. We are grateful to all counsel for
their helpful oral and written submissions.
[2] The Magistrates’ Courts dealt with over 55,000 criminal cases last year which
was far and away the biggest volume of such cases in any judicial tier. The
procedure is summary. Any delay in dealing with a case inevitably has a knock on
effect on the ability of the court to deal with other outstanding cases. There is,
therefore, a particular emphasis on expedition in this court tier.
The cases on Magistrates’ Courts adjournments
[3] The power to adjourn proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court is stated in
general terms and is contained in Article 161(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern
Ireland) Order 1981. The relevant principles are not controversial. They can be
derived from a series of well-known cases which we summarise below. Much of this
material repeats a discussion of this issue by McCloskey J in Re Quigley and others
[2010] NIQB 132.
[4] In R v Hereford Magistrates’ Court ex parte Rowlands [1998] QB 110 the
applicant received late disclosure of two witness statements which were helpful to
the defence. His solicitors contacted the witnesses who indicated that they would
give evidence but one could not take time off work on the day fixed for the hearing
and the other had an interview for admission to a university on that day and was
also not available. The justices refused an application for adjournment. The applicant
sought judicial review. Lord Bingham reviewed the law.
“It is not possible or desirable to identify hard and
fast rules as to when adjournments should or should
not be granted. The guiding principle must be that
justices should fully examine the circumstances
leading to applications for delay, the reasons for those
applications and the consequences both to the
prosecution and the defence. Ultimately, they must
decide what is fair in the light of all those
circumstances.
This court will only interfere with the exercise of the
justices' discretion whether to grant an adjournment
in cases where it is plain that a refusal will cause
substantial unfairness to one of the parties. Such
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
R v Michael Furniss and Others
...the applicant’s right to legal aid effective” (para. 8). 50. The Department of Justice appealed Treacy J’s order. The Court of Appeal ([2013] NIQB 57) allowed the appeal on the basis that the defendant was the author of his own misfortune for having dismissed his legal team and relied on R(......
-
Gracey (Damien Patrick Matthew) and Sean Paul Fitzsimmons' Applications (Leave Stage)
...accused, the victim and his or her family, and the public.” Those remarks were quoted with approval by this court in Re Millar and Others [2013] NIQB 57 at paragraph [9] of the judgment when the learned Lord Chief Justice emphasised that: “It is important to note the emphasis on the public ......
-
Fionda's (Maria (A Minor)) Application by her mother and next friend Rona McDaid
...to grant or refuse adjournment applications has recently been considered by the Divisional Court in this jurisdiction in Re Millar [2014] NI 246 where Morgan LCJ referred to “the interests of the victim and the desirability of having prosecutions determined on their merits…”. As Wade and Fo......
- Re Gracey's and Fitzsimmons' Applications for Judicial Review