Junior Lawal v The Crown Court at Cambridge
[2023] EWHC 466 (Admin)
Asif Khan, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Manchester
31 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2730 (Admin)
High Court
Mr. Khan lost his appeal because the judge thought it was fair to let his appeal go ahead even though he didn't have a lawyer. The judge said it was Mr. Khan's fault for firing his lawyer at the last minute. The judge also said that even if the police search was illegal (a separate issue), that didn't mean the appeal should have been stopped.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Khan's application for judicial review challenged the Crown Court's refusal to adjourn his appeal hearing due to lack of legal representation.
- •Mr. Khan was convicted of obstructing a police officer during a search under s.18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
- •The legality of the search hinged on whether Mohamed Bilal, who was under arrest, occupied or controlled the premises searched.
- •Mr. Khan dismissed his solicitors shortly before the appeal hearing, leading to his self-representation.
- •The Crown Court refused the adjournment, considering Mr. Khan's ability to present his case and the court's backlog.
- •Mr. Khan argued the Crown Court misconstrued the s.18 search's legality.
Legal Principles
A court's decision to adjourn or not is a case management decision, with a generous approach required on appeal.
R (on the application of Lehram Capital) v Southwark Crown Court [2023] EWHC 3190 (Admin), [40]-[55]
In deciding whether to adjourn, the court considers the defendant's ability to present their defense, the public interest in speedy justice, and the fault of the party seeking adjournment.
Crown Prosecution Service v Picton [2006] EWHC 1108 (Admin), [9]
The s.18 power of entry, search, and seizure under PACE 1984 requires the premises to be occupied or controlled by a person under arrest for an indictable offense.
Khan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2008] EWCA Crim 723
Outcomes
The renewed application for judicial review was dismissed.
The Crown Court's decision to refuse an adjournment was deemed fair and within its discretion. The court considered relevant factors, and Mr. Khan had a fair opportunity to present his case despite lacking representation. His primary complaint regarding the legality of the search was not directly linked to the adjournment refusal.