« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Summary Justice Review Committee: REPORT TO MINISTERS
Chapter 27: ALTERATION OF DIETS
27.1 We consider that section 137(1) of the 1995 Act, which allows the Crown and the defence to make a joint written application seeking to have the case call on a date earlier than the date fixed for its next calling, should continue in force. This is a useful provision in many circumstances. It can be and is used to get cases to call together on the same date, for instance.
27.2 However, we consider that section 137(2) of the 1995 Act is inimical to the efficient management by the court of summary criminal business. That sub-section provides that: "Where the prosecutor and the accused make joint application to the court (orally or in writing) for the postponement of a diet which has been fixed, the court shall discharge the diet and fix a later diet in lieu unless the court considers that it should not do so because there has been unnecessary delay on the part of one or more of the parties". The requirement on the court to postpone the case can be almost mandatory. If the application is in writing only, the court may be in no position to determine whether there has been "unnecessary delay". The court otherwise has an inherent power to adjourn or to refuse to adjourn cases and in other circumstances an unfettered discretion to do so. The Crown and the defence should not be able to fetter that discretion. It may be convenient for both of them to have a particular case postponed. If this sub-section is to be retained, at the very least the application should specify in cogent terms the reasons why adjournment is sought. We doubt whether this sub-section needs to be retained in its present form. It would be sufficient to provide that such applications may be made jointly either orally or in writing.
We recommend that consideration should be given to repealing or amending section 137(2) of the 1995 Act. If it is thought necessary to retain that sub-section it could be amended to specify that applications for postponement of a case should state in cogent terms the reasons why postponement is sought.
« Previous | Contents | Next »