R (Lawson) v Stafford Magistrates’ Court [2007] All ER (D) 31 (Oct)
The defendant was charged with driving in excess of the speed limit. During his closing submissions, defence counsel raised for the first time the issues that the prosecution had to satisfy the court that the signs indicating the limit complied with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (SI 2002/3113) and that the speed measuring device should be tested.
The justices invited the prosecution to apply for the case to be adjourned part heard so that these evidential issues could be addressed. The defendant contended that the justices erred in encouraging an adjournment.
HELD That a defendant might be prejudiced by an adjournment because of inconvenience and additional cost were not matters which should lead to a conclusion that the justices’ decision to adjourn was perverse. The parties should have attempted to identify the real issues at an early stage of the proceedings.
The defendant had sought to ambush the prosecution on the questions of temporary signage and the testing of the device. As a matter of law, the magistrates were entitled to adjourn the case to receive further evidence.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
