header-logo header-logo

CRIMINAL LITIGATION

30 March 2007
Issue: 7266 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

R (Costello) v North East Essex Magistrates [2006] EWHC 3145 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 294 (Nov)

If, through no fault of a defendant, witnesses do not attend who should have attended, or a defendant does not attend because he is unfit to attend, the magistrates ought generally to grant an adjournment.

Following R v Kingston-upon-Thames Magistrates, ex parte Martin [1994] Imm AR 172, the magistrates should take account of: the importance of the proceedings and their adverse consequences for the party seeking the adjournment; the risk of prejudice to that party and to the other party in the case; the convenience of the court (the least important of the factors); and whether the party seeking the adjournment was responsible for the problem that led to the application.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll