Council prosecution sparks controversy as prosecutor fails to appear

 

In a recent legal case involving the London Borough of Lewisham, two defendants, found themselves in the spotlight, accused of introducing an additional skylight to their roof without planning permission. However, this case has now raised a series of pressing questions about the Council's prosecutor - who failed to make an appearance, much to the annoyance of a district judge. 

A skipped court appearance

On the morning of October 5, 2023, a case was scheduled at the Bromley Magistrates Court. The two defendants had previously requested an adjournment. A request that was refused outright by Lewisham Council's prosecutor. Nonetheless, on the day, it was the noticeable absence of the Lewisham Council's prosecutor that became the focus of attention, particularly for District Judge Turnock.

Appointed by the Queen in 2020 upon the advice of the Right Honourable Robert Buckland QC MP (pictured) and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Right Honourable The Lord Burnett of Maldon, District Judge Turnock is a highly respected figure within the legal world. Not a person to mess with one would have thought. 

On the day of the hearing, the defendants' representative, Mr. Quentin Hunt, a direct access barrister at 2 Bedford Row Chambers, arrived early with his clients for pre-hearing discussions but was met with an empty prosecution table.

Where oh where was the prosecutor?

As the court clock ticked and minutes moved into hours, District Judge Turnock patiently and graciously began making enquiries. But the proceedings were stalled by an email from Lewisham's legal department, received at 11:23 am. (The case should have commenced at 10am.) The email disclosed that the prosecutor was unwell, and therefore, no prosecutor would attend the hearing. Subsequently, the court adjourned the case to October 31, 2023, leaving all parties at an impasse. 

Wasted costs application

Following the unexpected turn of events, District Judge Turnock indicated that a wasted costs application against Lewisham Council would be considered, pursuant to Section 19 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This application allows for the recovery of costs incurred due to an unnecessary or improper act or omission by the prosecution.

Defence's stance

The defence, represented by Mr. Quentin Hunt, now argues vehemently that the non-appearance of the prosecutor constitutes both an unnecessary act and improper conduct on the part of the prosecution. Unsatisfied with the explanations provided, they extended an invitation to the prosecution to furnish medical evidence, which the latter declined to do. 

Furthermore, the defence highlighted that no effort had been made to contact the court or the other parties to explain the prosecutor's absence, a courtesy that would have been anticipated under different circumstances. So, a prosecutor who intended on criminalising good residents for having no evidence of permission for a skylight sees the spotlight fall on them for an untimely and unexplained absence at court. Even if it is conceded that the prosecutor's pre-existing condition genuinely prevented attendance, the defence contends that this was a condition that was known. They argue that the Council had failed to establish adequate processes to manage such foreseeable absences.

Implications and potential outcomes

This case raises significant questions about the conduct and oversight of legal proceedings, particularly when a sole prosecutor, as claimed in this case, is unable to attend due to a preexisting condition. The lack of timely and appropriate evidence, coupled with the failure to contact the court or the other parties in a more timely manner, has given rise to concerns about oversight and potential contempt of court. Moreover, it's not the first time this prosecutor has failed to attend court, as noted in a previous case. 

The defence asserts that the Council's inability to manage such absences, particularly when they are a foreseeable possibility, represents an improper omission that could justify the payment of costs.

As the case unfolds, it is yet to be seen how District Judge Turnock will rule on the wasted costs application. The legal community and the wider public will be closely monitoring the case as it may set an essential precedent for the handling of prosecution oversight in legal proceedings. Certainly, had the defendants themselves failed to appear at court without good reason they would be clapped in irons.

The defence barrister

Quentin Hunt, the barrister representing the defence, boasts over two decades of specialised experience in criminal law. His reputation for fearless representation and an encyclopedic knowledge of the law has earned him many accolades, including the title of 'Direct Access Barrister of the Year' at the SME Legal Awards.

Will there be light at the end of the skylight tunnel?

The outcome of this case is yet to be determined and will be closely followed by legal experts, the public alike, and of course The Big Retort.

Editor's Note: Context and Disclaimer

It is important to note that this case has a historical backdrop, with prior interactions between this prosecutor and this blog's editor. In an unrelated prosecution case, the council's prosecutor issued warnings against the editor for perceived interference. This information is provided for context but should not influence the assessment of the current case, which is an independent legal matter with its own unique circumstances.

Copyright (c) TheBigRetort