This week’s Digest considers three judgments. The first, from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), addresses the issue of adjournments for pre-booked holidays and their impact on the fairness of the trial. The second, handed down by the Divisional Court, deals with an application for committal for contempt of court, where the court before which the contempt occurs decides not to deal with it immediately, but rather refer the matter to the Solicitor General. In the third judgment, the Divisional Court deals with whether convictions flowing from a breach of the procedure laid down in ss. 17A and 20 Magistrates’ Court 1980 were a nullity.

R v Woodward and others [2019] EWCA Crim 1002

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Simon LJ on 13.06.19.

The issue in this case was whether a trial that had been adjourned for two three-week periods to allow for jurors to take pre-booked holidays was rendered unfair by the adjournments. The appeals were dismissed. The court offered guidance on factors which might play a role in what was necessarily a fact-sensitive analysis of whether the trial was rendered unfair; in the instant case, although the second break was far from satisfactory, the process was not unfair nor the verdicts unsafe.

 

HM Solicitor General v Holmes [2019] EWHC 1483 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Coulson LJ on 10.06.19.

This case raised a number of issues regarding the procedure to be followed for contempt of court in circumstances where the court before which the contempt occurs decides not to deal with the matter but refer it to the Solicitor General. Despite the imperfections of Part 81 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it was clear that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for a committal order, and permission was required pursuant to CPR r. 81.13; the test to be applied was (a) has the applicant demonstrated at least a prima facie case of contempt; (b) if so, is it in the public interest that an application to commit should be made. Permission was granted in this particular case.

 

R (Bahbahani) v Ealing Magistrates’ Court [2019] EWHC 1385 (Admin)

The judgment of the court, available here, was handed down on 06.06.19.

The issue in this appeal was whether convictions that flowed from proceedings in which the defendant was impersonated were a nullity. The appeal was allowed; the procedure at ss. 17A and 20 Magistrates’ Court 1980 was a condition precedent to jurisdiction and lack of compliance rendered the proceedings a nullity. Further, there was no compelling reason to refuse to grant relief under s. 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 such that the Claimant’s convictions would be quashed.

Louis Mably QC appeared for the Claimant.

 

Julian Assange to appear in court after Home Secretary signs extradition request

 

Police forensics contractor ‘sent phones to Fone Fun Shop’

 

CPS faces challenge over ‘covert policy change’ on rape cases

 

Law Society calls for taskforce to save ailing criminal justice system

 

Previous post Summer Reading 2019
Next post Weekly Digest: 24 June 2019