BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Nicola v Enfield Magistrates Court [2007] EWHC 1974 (Admin) (18 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/1974.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 1974 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE NELSON
____________________
NICOLA | Claimant | |
v | ||
ENFIELD MAGISTRATES' COURT | Defendant |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Defendant was not represented and did not attend
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"The Crown prosecutor made an application to adjourn the trial to another day. He said that it was in the interests of justice to adjourn the case. The offences with which the defendant Mr Nicola had been charged were serious. They involved taking a high value motor vehicle without the owner's consent, driving whilst disqualified, driving without due care and attention and driving with no insurance. The prosecutor's case was that Mr Nicola had driven the car whilst disqualified, plainly disregarding the order of the court. The trial had only been listed once (today's date). It had not been effective in court. He went on to say that there was no explanation for the failure of the prosecution's witnesses to attend. It was unusual, given that they were police officers who had been warned to attend. It was in the interests of justice that the court heard the evidence and determined whether the defendants were guilty or not. If the court refused to grant the prosecution's application, the prosecution case in relation to Nicola would collapse because the prosecution would be compelled to offer no evidence.
Mr Nicola's counsel objected to the application to adjourn, stating that it was for the Crown to ensure the attendance of their witnesses. His client, Mr Nicola, was ready to proceed and he should not have the case hanging over him for longer than was necessary.
I deliberated with my two colleagues on the Bench and we all unanimously decided to grant the prosecution's request for an adjournment for the reasons given.
I announced that the case would be adjourned because it was in the interests of justice that it should be adjourned."
Mr Hook, I think we are going to have to allow the Crown Prosecution Service four weeks to do this. It will involve digging out files and probably chasing up information. We know they are overstretched. Do you have any representation to make on this?