![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> S v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 1207 (Admin) (28 April 2006) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1207.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 1207 (Admin) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE OPENSHAW
____________________
S | (APPELLANT) | |
-v- | ||
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | (RESPONDENT) |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR VINCENT YIP appeared on behalf of the RESPONDENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Friday, 28th April 2006
"We have noted the applications and we feel that this court has been very accommodating today to all parties. This trial should have started at 10.00am and it is now 12 noon. Earlier there was an application to make enquiries and afterwards both parties agreed to carry on with the trial. Therefore we feel as a bench that this trial should go ahead and the case will be decided on the evidence put before it."
1. Was the Justices' decision to refuse the adjournment and accordingly deprive S of his right to disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 so unreasonable that no reasonable Bench properly directed would have reached that decision?
2. Did the Justices' refusal deprive S of his right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6.1?