[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Taffs v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 332 (Admin) (10 February 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/332.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 332 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		10 February 2012

1. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: I shall ask Mr Justice Irwin to give the first judgment.
2. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: The applicant in this case, Mrs Taffs, is a lady of good character. She was charged with offences suggesting that between 15 January 2008 and 13 May 2009 she was in receipt of housing benefit and council tax benefit but failed to notify the authorities that she had a relevant change of circumstances, the change being that she had started to work part-time and therefore would earn. Those are the dates of the alleged offences. The summons was issued on 3 August 2009. On 8 June 2010 she was convicted at the Magistrates' Court and appealed, and the hearing of the appeal was due to have taken place on 18 March 2011. Mrs Taffs submitted to the court a letter from her General Practitioner. It is not necessary to read all of the letter but it concludes:

"The patient feels that she is not well enough to attend an appointment on Friday 18 March 2011."

3. There is a significant problem within the court system of generalised, and sometimes very weak, medical reports, perhaps more often than not from General Practitioners, advanced by parties to try and seek adjournments. For my part I am not surprised that, after an initial period, the court was sceptical of this particular reference because of the phrase: "The patient feels that she is not well enough." That phrase implies an expression of view by Mrs Taffs and not an independent view by the doctor.
4. However, Mrs Taffs was told initially by the Chelmsford Crown Court that the matter would only be listed for a mention and the substantive appeal would be adjourned. Later on, on the day before the hearing, 17 March, Mrs Taffs' solicitors were advised by the court that the matter would proceed as a substantive appeal because the respondents, the local authority, did not accept that this was a genuine basis for an adjournment.
5. On 17 March, therefore, Mrs Taffs obtained a second letter from another GP at her practice. After the text of the first, this one wrote:

"She will not be able to attend the court until the end of her examinations on 26 May and she is not well enough to attend today due to the above health reasons."

6. Although also generalised, and in fact rather unsatisfactory, that doctor's report did, on the face of it, state that there was an objective health problem which affected Mrs Taffs' capacity to go to court.
7. Although the case had been set down for a day, it was not reached until late morning and at that stage the Recorder, sitting with Justices, raised the question as to whether it could proceed, indicating that because of shortage of court time, "nothing to do with the appellant itself, we do not have time to accommodate the case today." The claimant's solicitor applied for an adjournment. The court was sceptical and concerned about the quality of the medical reports and asked for further information. The claimant's solicitor indicated he could not act without the presence of his client and so if the court did intend to proceed, he would have to withdraw. In order to conduct the appeal properly, said her solicitor, he would need further discussions and consultations with her.
8. It was quite right of the court to ask for more information and it was a perfectly understandable position to take, in the face of even the second of the medical letters.
9. Over the luncheon adjournment, Mrs Taffs' husband made what in my judgment was a foolish decision. He decided to prevent her solicitor getting further information from the doctor. When that was reported by the solicitor to the Recorder after lunch, understandably the Recorder was concerned by that, since it might have appeared to him and his colleagues that Mr and Mrs Taffs -- Mr Taffs being present -- were not being forthcoming with all the information that might have been available to the help court.
10. The decision was then taken to proceed and announced to the solicitor on the basis that the court would hear the evidence. He then left. The case was begun by way of opening before the bench but after a short period -- it is not clear quite how long -- the Recorder interrupted and suggested that he had experience of previous appeals where in the absence of the appellant the appeal was conceded without hearing any evidence. That is in fact what the court proceeded to do.
11. They then made an award of costs of £1,000, which they knew was additional to a previous award of costs of rather more than a £1,000, and which, given the means of Mrs Taffs, would in total have taken more than 4 years to pay off.
12. The decision of the court was taken without really considering the controverted fact. Nor did the court consider the Criminal Procedure Rules, which do assist courts and should be referred to in such a situation, balancing the rights of a defendant who is a witness against the strong need of the court not to have time wasted by adjournments that are not well-founded, particularly when poorly founded on very vague medical information.
13. We have considered the case carefully and after a great deal of hesitation I would be prepared to grant the application to quash this decision, expressing, as I do, much sympathy with the Recorder, who was not best helped by Mrs Taffs or by the attitude that she took. But this was the first application for an adjournment, and it was supported to some degree at least by two successive medical reports, the second expressing an objective view. Were she to make a second application in the future, any court would be bound to look upon that with profound scepticism, and any further adjournment would be most unlikely to be achieved.
14. In the course of the hearing today Mrs Taffs has, following questions by my Lord, Lord Justice Gross, indicated that the nature of her defence is straightforward. She says that she informed the local authority by letter, which was stamped by them, that she was working and that therefore she never concealed anything from them. Therefore she was not guilty of the offence with which she was charged. If that is correct, then there may be a substantive defence rather than a technical defence. No doubt on a resumed appeal the court will consider whether that indication was properly given.
15. So, as I say, after considerable hesitation, I quash the appeal, I quash the order for costs and I remit the matter to be heard before the Crown Court.
16. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: I echo what my Lord has said about the undesirability of adjournments and the costs they impose on our system. I further echo my Lord's observations about the sympathy that this court has for the position in which the Recorder found himself, not assisted at all by the stance taken on behalf of Mrs Taffs on the day.
17. Mrs Taffs now knows, and others should, that adjournments are not readily granted. Furthermore, and in particular, generalised medical reports may well be greeted with scepticism.
18. However, for the reasons given by my Lord, and with which I agree, I am persuaded, if only just, to allow this application. Thank you.
19. THE CLAIMANT: Can I ask for fares up here and costs? And how do I go about that, as I'm not --
20. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: I do not think we are going to allow it anyway.
21. THE CLAIMANT: The costs, I've already paid £1,000, they're going to be reimbursed?
22. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: Yes.
23. THE CLAIMANT: But also, it was £15.80 for a travel card up here today and parking, and we've spent hours and hours on this, I've put my university work aside because of this, and I've got a figure here. Shall I tell you it?
24. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: You can tell me the figure, yes.
25. THE CLAIMANT: What would I do with it?
26. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: I will tell you what you will do in a minute.
27. THE CLAIMANT: I've got all costs of phone calls, for parking, £13 --
28. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: Total figure?
29. THE CLAIMANT: Total figure £268.74.
30. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: Just a moment.
(A short pause)
31. Thank you. Anything to add?
32. THE CLAIMANT: No.
33. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: Mrs Taffs now applies, in addition to the orders which we have made, for an order that she be paid the costs, running in excess of £200, which she says she has incurred in dealing with today's application. We refuse that application. It may be a less than straightforward question as to whether many of the figures which she put forward would be properly allowable in any event but we need not decide that because we refuse the application on the broader ground. We think that the stance taken by those of behalf of Mrs Taffs at the hearing at the Crown Court and the procuring of a simply generalised medical report really brought about this position for herself.
34. THE CLAIMANT: That's not my fault, is it?
35. LORD JUSTICE GROSS: For those reasons, we refuse the application. Thank you.