REGINA v Clarke

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by the prosecution under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for leave to appeal against a ruling made by His Honour Judge Milmo QC at Nottingham Crown Court, who refused an application to adjourn a trial for up to four weeks.

The case arose from allegations that the Defendant assaulted and raped the Complainant, who had known each other for about ten years and lived together for approximately two years. The offences allegedly occurred in February 2007, including assault causing bruising, rape, and subsequent assaults and damage to the Complainant's home.

Following initial proceedings, the Complainant expressed unwillingness to give evidence and attempted to withdraw her complaint. Despite this, the prosecution sought to compel her attendance by summons. The Defendant was additionally charged with perverting the course of justice based on a recorded telephone conversation in which he appeared to encourage the Complainant to alter her statement.

The trial was initially scheduled for 3rd September 2007 at Lincoln Crown Court. The Complainant attended but refused to give evidence and was warned she could be held in contempt. She later agreed to give evidence via video link. However, the trial was adjourned and subsequently moved to Nottingham Crown Court due to changes in counsel and procedural difficulties.

On 17th September, the Complainant failed to attend court despite a warrant for her arrest. The prosecution applied for an adjournment to locate her, which was granted for 24 hours. On 18th September, with the Complainant still not present and untraceable, the prosecution applied for a further adjournment, which Judge Milmo refused.

The prosecution then sought leave to appeal Judge Milmo's refusal to grant the adjournment, which is the subject of this opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the prosecution's right of appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 extends to a case management decision such as the refusal to grant an adjournment before trial.
2. Assuming the right to appeal exists, whether leave to appeal should be granted in the circumstances of this case.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution contended that the refusal to grant a four-week adjournment hindered their ability to proceed with the trial given the Complainant's absence and unwillingness to give evidence.
• They argued that the case management decision was critical and that the prosecution had not previously sought an adjournment, making this the first application.
• The prosecution submitted that the Complainant had previously attended court and appeared willing to give evidence, indicating a reasonable expectation she would do so if found and brought to court.

Defendant's Arguments

• The defence opposed the adjournment application and highlighted concerns regarding the Complainant's reliability and the impact on the Defendant's right to a timely trial.
• They acknowledged that the prosecution's appeal right extended to the decision but argued that the trial judge's discretion should not be interfered with unless unreasonable.
• They noted the difficulties caused by late disclosure of evidence and changes in counsel, emphasizing the importance of finality in case management decisions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first considered the statutory framework under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, focusing on sections 57, 58, 61, 67, and 74. It concluded that the prosecution's right of appeal under section 58 does extend to case management decisions, including the refusal of an adjournment before trial or summing-up, as such rulings are broadly defined under section 74 and can be terminating rulings.

The court emphasized that case management decisions are primarily within the discretion of the trial judge and should only be interfered with on appeal if the ruling was wrong in law, involved an error of law or principle, or was unreasonable.

Applying these principles, the court found Judge Milmo's refusal to grant a further adjournment was a reasoned exercise of discretion. The judge had carefully balanced the serious nature of the allegations, the uncertainty surrounding the Complainant's whereabouts and willingness to testify, and the interests of the Defendant, who had been in custody awaiting trial.

The court noted the limited time previously granted to the prosecution to locate the Complainant and the judge's legitimate concerns about indefinite delay and the fairness to the Defendant. It concluded that the judge's decision was reasonable and not susceptible to interference.

Holding and Implications

The application for leave to appeal against Judge Milmo's refusal to grant an adjournment is refused.

As a consequence of this refusal and the prosecution's inability to proceed without the Complainant's evidence, the Defendant must be acquitted of the offences charged. The court recognized this as an inevitable statutory consequence rather than a new legal precedent. The decision thus brings finality to the proceedings in this case, with no further trial possible on the indictment.