SIMARPAUL THANDI (R on the application of) v SEVENOAKS MAGISTRATES' COURT

9 March 2023

[2023] EWHC 507 (Admin)

High Court

A man's trial was unfairly stopped because the judge didn't give good enough reasons for doing so. The court said the decision to stop the trial was wrong, but didn't force a 'not guilty' verdict. The man can now get an expert to look at the evidence before his new trial.

Key Facts

•Claimant charged with impersonating a police officer under section 90(1) of the Police Act 1996.
•Trial adjourned on the same day it began (August 3, 2022) due to a prosecution disclosure failure.
•The disclosure failure involved the non-inclusion of Mr. Bains' hard drive and Ring doorbell footage on the schedule of unused material, despite the claimant alleging the footage was edited.
•Claimant argued the video footage was incomplete and tampered with, hindering his ability to present a full defense.
•Magistrates adjourned the trial without providing sufficiently reasoned justification.
•Claimant sought judicial review of the adjournment decision.

Legal Principles

Prosecutor's duty of disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (1996 Act).

1996 Act, sections 3, 4, 7A, 8

Overriding objective in criminal proceedings: just, fair, and efficient case management (Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR)).

CPR, rules 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.3

Magistrates' courts' discretion to adjourn trials, subject to rigorous scrutiny and cogent reasoning (Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, case law).

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 10(1); R v Aberdare Justices; R v Hereford Magistrates' Court; Saunders v Bristol Magistrates' Court; Criminal Practice Directions (CPD) Part 24C

Remedies available in judicial review under the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31

Outcomes

The magistrates' decision to adjourn the trial was declared unlawful.

The reasons given for the adjournment were insufficiently cogent and did not demonstrate rigorous scrutiny of the case or consideration of all relevant factors, as required by the CPD and case law.

No further order was made.

While the adjournment was unlawful, the court found that there was not only one decision the magistrates could have reached, and directing an acquittal would be inappropriate. The court noted the claimant could still pursue expert review of the evidence.

SIMARPAUL THANDI (R on the application of) v SEVENOAKS MAGISTRATES' COURT

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Jessica Rooks, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

Asif Khan, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Manchester

Dean Francis v Director Public Prosecutions

Joseph Quirke, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary

Darykie Ramos Molina, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook