Morrison's (Maria) Application and The Director of Public Prosecutions Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Morgan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] NIQB 67 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 13 June 2013 |
| Year | 2013 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2013] NIQB 67
Ref:
MOR8908
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
13/06/2013
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Morrison’s (Maria) Application and The Director of Public Prosecutions
Application [2013] NIQB 67
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MARIA MORRISON TO APPLY
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF DISTRICT JUDGE CONNOR
MADE ON 10 MARCH 2011
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF
DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE CONWAY ON 6 JULY 2011
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, Higgins LJ and Treacy J
________
MORGAN LCJ
[1] These are two applications for judicial review arising from prosecution
applications for adjournment of summary proceedings. In each case the proceedings
were dismissed. Ms Connolly appeared for Ms Morrison, Mr McAlister for the
Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr Coll for the District Judges. We are grateful
to counsel for their helpful oral and written submissions.
[2] This court has recently considered the case law on adjournments in the
Magistrates Courts in Re Millar, Re DPP [2013] NIQB and we set it out here again for
the benefit of those reading this judgment.
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
2
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 Magistrate’s 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
unfairness may arise when a defendant is denied a
full opportunity to present his case. But neither
defendants nor their legal advisers should be
permitted to frustrate the objective of a speedy trial
without substantial grounds.
Applications for adjournments must be subjected to
rigorous scrutiny. Any defendant who is guilty of
deliberately seeking to postpone a trial without good
reason has no cause for complaint if his application
for an adjournment is refused: see, for example, Reg.
v. Macclesfield Justices, Ex parte Jones [1983] R.T.R.
143. In deciding whether to grant an adjournment
justices will bear in mind that they have a
responsibility for ensuring, so far as possible, that
summary justice is speedy justice. This is not a matter
of mere administrative convenience, although
efficient administration and economy are in
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Gracey (Damien Patrick Matthew) and Sean Paul Fitzsimmons' Applications (Leave Stage)
...has recently been considered by Divisional Courts in this jurisdiction in Re Millar and Others [2013] NIQB 57 and Re Maria Morrison [2013] NIQB 67. In Millar Morgan LCJ, delivering the judgment of the court, referred to the case of DPP v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108 (Admin) and noted that there ......
-
Fionda's (Maria (A Minor)) Application - by her mother and next friend Rona McDaid
...consideration for others. [33] When considering the triangulation of interests, as the Divisional Court pointed out in Morrison [2013] NIQB 67 at [14]: “It is undoubtedly right that the history of the progress of the case including any adjournment history is relevant in exercising the discr......
-
Fionda's (Maria (A Minor)) Application by her mother and next friend Rona McDaid
...the public had not been respected. In this respect the court was following the approach of Morgan LCJ in the case of Millar and Morrison[2013] NIQB 67 where he again referred to the importance of the emphasis being placed upon the public interest in effective prosecution and the place of th......
- Re Gracey's and Fitzsimmons' Applications for Judicial Review