Structured, Anonymised Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This section of the judgment records observations about the listing and progression of a long-delayed criminal case. The case experienced a prolonged history of being placed repeatedly on warned lists (notably on multiple two-week warned lists) without being called for trial; the first actual trial listing occurred on 11 August 2025, described as approaching the sixth anniversary of the factual incident underlying the prosecution.

During the trial period at issue, two prosecution witnesses failed to give evidence: one witness was unavailable because she was on holiday and the relevant prosecuting agent did not notify the court of that unavailability until late; the other witness had been warned, initially indicated she would attend, then changed her mind despite a witness summons being in force in relation to her. There was significant criticism of the prosecuting agency's conduct, but the court concluded that the primary cause of the delay and listing failures lay elsewhere.

The court explains that the real problem was a very long delay in bringing the case to trial and multiple failed attempts to list it for trial. Those listing failures are attributed primarily to systemic pressures in the Crown Court — a large backlog, shortages of court rooms and of key personnel (including advocates), and the particular listing practices adopted at the relevant Crown Court centre — rather than to the prosecuting agency's individual errors. The court records gratitude to the local judiciary and staff for their efforts in managing an intractable backlog.

The court also notes it published this part of the judgment by varying the section 71 reporting restriction so that these observations (kept anonymised so as not to identify the case to potential jurors) could be placed on the public record to encourage reflection by judicial listing officers and to serve the public interest in transparency.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the failure to notify the court of a witness's unavailability and the subsequent absence of another witness demonstrated culpable fault by the prosecuting agency (Company A) affecting the fairness or proper disposal of the case.
2. Whether systemic listing practices (specifically the use of two-week warned lists and the local listing system) and the backlog in the court were the principal causes of delay and listing failure in this matter.
3. What lessons or adjustments to listing practice (including when to fix dates and how warned lists should be managed) should be drawn and communicated to Presiding and Resident Judges under current practice directions.
4. Whether a portion of the judgment recording these observations should be published by varying the section 71 reporting restriction in the public interest, while preserving anonymity for juror protection.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a focused examination of the listing history and the criticisms directed at the prosecuting agency (Company A). The reasoning proceeded through the following steps, relying only on material contained in the opinion:

1. Assessment of the prosecuting agency's conduct: The court acknowledged serious criticism of Company A for failing to notify the court sufficiently early of a witness's unavailability (because she was on holiday). The court nonetheless concluded that this failure was of limited consequence in the particular circumstances because the other witness had been properly warned, had initially confirmed attendance, and then changed her mind despite a witness summons being in force.
2. Identification of the principal cause of delay: The court concluded that the main problem was a prolonged delay caused by repeated, unsuccessful attempts to list the case, and that this systemic problem was not the fault of Company A. Instead, it was principally a consequence of the court backlog and the listing system employed at the relevant Crown Court centre.
3. Contextual mitigation and commendation: The court emphasised that the Resident Judge, judicial colleagues and listing staff were working under severe pressure managing a large backlog with shortages of courts and key personnel (including advocates). It recorded thanks to Attorney Smith for explaining how intractable these pressures are and stressed that the failing in this single case should be read against the broader context of sustained, difficult work across the court system.
4. Allocation of listing responsibility: The court noted that listing is a judicial function under section 7(2) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, vested ultimately in the Lady Chief Justice and commonly discharged by delegation to the Senior Presiding Judge, the Presiding Judges of the Circuits and Resident Judges. This constitutional framework underpinned the court's analysis that listing practice (rather than prosecutorial conduct) was the locus for reform.
5. Explanation of how warned lists operate and why they can fail: The opinion described the practical operation of warned lists (particularly two-week warned lists), explaining that they are a form of over-listing intended to keep courts busy by having cases "on call" during a window of time. The court analysed why this approach relies on uncertain estimates about other cases and why, in the presence of advocate shortages and the realities of modern listing, warned lists over lengthy periods are likely to fail and to impose unreasonable burdens on witnesses.
6. Use of precedent and guidance: The court referred to Ng (which itself quoted the Listing Advice of the then Senior Presiding Judge) to show that warning about two-week warned lists had already been sounded and was applicable here. The court relied on that material to justify its recommendations.
7. Concrete, evidence-based recommendations: Drawing from the factual review, the court set out a suite of practical suggestions (labelled i–vi in the opinion) addressing how to reduce the human cost of protracted warned-list practices and improve listing outcomes. These recommendations included preferring shorter warned lists, fixing dates earlier when a case has been deferred substantially, and ensuring warned lists only include cases with a realistic prospect of starting. The court made clear these were lessons for Resident and Presiding Judges and those responsible under Criminal Practice Direction 5.6.
8. Transparency and publication: Having anonymised the material so as not to identify the case to potential jurors, the court chose to publish this part of the judgment (by varying the section 71 reporting restriction) so that the observations could inform judicial practice and serve the public interest in transparency.

Holding and Implications

The court authorised publication of this part of the judgment by varying the section 71 reporting restriction so that the observations about listing and the management of the case could be published in anonymised form.

Implications and immediate effects:

• Direct effect on the parties: The opinion does not alter the substantive outcome of the underlying criminal proceedings as recorded in this excerpt; instead it publishes judicial observations (anonymised) about listing and case management. The court made clear that, on the facts recounted, the principal cause of delay was systemic listing failure and backlog rather than culpable conduct by Company A, although Company A's late notification was criticised as serious.
• Guidance for judicial practice: The judgment offers practical recommendations intended for Presiding and Resident Judges and listing officers under Criminal Practice Direction 5.6. Those recommendations are focused on limiting the human cost of prolonged warned lists (prefer shorter warned lists, fix dates earlier when cases are put back, restrict warned lists to cases with realistic prospects of hearing, and improve communication between courts and lawyers).
• Public interest and transparency: The court emphasised the importance of transparency in the criminal justice system and published these observations to assist reflection and potential change in listing practices, while preserving juror anonymity.
• Precedential effect: The opinion sets out practical observations and guidance, but it does not purport to establish new binding law; it records the court's view on appropriate listing practice and reiterates previously expressed caution (as in Ng and the Listing Advice quoted therein). The court did not indicate that it was creating new legal precedent beyond these considered observations and recommendations.

Note: This summary is strictly based on the text provided in the opinion excerpt. No information has been added that was not present in that text. Where the opinion did not provide detailed party submissions or other particulars, those items have been omitted or indicated as unavailable.