Prosecutorial errors and the overriding objective
- 4 people thought this was useful
In Payne v South Lakeland Magistrates’ Court, unreported, 30 June 2011, the administrative court considered what effect a prosecution error should have on the proceedings. It is not in the public interest that cases should be decided upon the vagaries of forensic mistakes made by lawyers, provided no prejudice is done by delay or for other specific reasons. Cases should be decided on their merits.
Facts: P was being prosecuted for an offence of speeding. The prosecutor called a safety camera technician who gave oral evidence as to the speed of the vehicle. The prosecution had photographs of the defendant’s car at the point that it passed the speed camera, but the data block (which is the part of the image that actually shows the speed) was missing from the photograph. Accordingly the prosecutor was not able to establish that P was speeding.
There then follows a dispute as to what then transpired, but the court were clearly unhappy at the situation and when the prosecutor finally made an application to adjourn, in order that he could locate the photographs, the court granted it.
The court observed that there was no prejudice to the defendant (as he was not at the proceedings), and that any financial loss occasioned by the adjournment could be dealt with by way of wasted costs.
Comment: What is interesting about this case, unlike so many others, is that there is no issue of ‘ambush’, indeed the court made a most welcome remark when observing that ‘[the Solicitor] had, as he was entitled, advised his client as to the strategy which would be adopted. That which he hoped for came about. ‘
However, the overriding objective prevailed when the court ruled:
“In the circumstances I have identified, it is my judgment that the interests of justice demanded that the strategy should not succeed if prejudice to the claimant could be avoided. That is the conclusion to which the magistrates came. In my judgment, the magistrates were right in the circumstances to grant the application, reluctantly made as it was by the prosecutor, and for that reason I would dismiss the claim.”
Have you found this article useful?
Let us know if something's wrong
If this article is miscategorised, misleading, incorrect or inappropriate for FreeLegalWeb, please let us know. We'll review the article and, if necessary, take action.
