Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trial judge had been entitled to refuse prosecution application for adjournment
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal from High Court, and sets aside an order quashing a decision of a Circuit Court judge to dismiss charges of indecent assault dating back to between 1968 and 1970, following the refusal of an adjournment application by the prosecution, on the grounds that: (a) the decision to refuse an adjournment had been made rationally and within jurisdiction, and the prosecution had accordingly been unable to adduce any evidence; and (b) (obiter) a decision to extend time to apply for judicial review had not complied with the amended rules requiring good and sufficient reason why the application had not been brought within time.
Judicial review - criminal law - direction of Circuit Court judge that jury find accused not guilty - charges of indecent assault against niece - allegations dating back to between 1968 and 1970 - charged in 2016 - delays in trial proceeding - application by prosecution in 2019 for adjournment, after jury empanelled - complainant unavailable - application by defence to dismiss charges on grounds of delay - direction granted - whether trial judge had acted in excess of jurisdiction - whether such application should have been entertained at commencement of proceedings prior to evidence - application for leave to apply for judicial review - extension of time.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
