Parashar – this case was taken to the High Court after the District Judge who was involved in managing the case made numerous decisions that were plainly unfair and compromised our client’s ability to have a fair trial. The eventual trial that took place was directed to be heard by an alternative judge as it would seem, the High Court agreed with our own concerns about the conduct of the District Judge whose decision we challenged:
“I am in no doubt in this case that the district judge failed to exercise his discretion in accordance with the guidance in CPS v Picton (above). To insist on a trial date on which the prosecution expert was available but the defence expert was not was wrong and would have led to an unfair trial. There is a high public interest in summary trials taking place quickly and on the day set for trial, and in adjournments not being granted absent compelling reasons. But it is also necessary as a matter of fairness and in the interests of justice, where a defence request to vacate a trial date is made, to consider whether, if it is not granted, the defendant will be able fully to present his defence, and if he will not be able to do so, the degree to which the defence will be compromised. That was not done here. This is an exceptional case justifying this court’s intervention by way of judicial review.”
The eventual trial in the Magistrates’ Court was concluded in October 2019 and our client was acquitted of the charge.