QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE PITCHFORD
|LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM||(CLAIMANT)|
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)
MS A SLATER (instructed by Collisons & Co) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Crown Copyright ©
Friday, 9th May 2003
"14. Although the Environmental Health officers, save for Mr Cooper, were cross-examined about the pub and about music in relation to the pub, they were not asked specifically
(a) if any abatement notice had been served on the pub licensee, or
(b) if any cautions had been administered to the pub licensee.
15. None of the Environmental Health Officers mentioned or gave any intimation that there had been any complaints or problems relating to noise from the Dartmouth public house. None of them mentioned that there had been a noise abatement notice served on those premises in June 2000 or that the landlady had been cautioned for breach of it on 17.1.01.
16. The impression that I received from the evidence of the Appellant's witnesses was that so far as the Environmental Health Officers were concerned there had been no problems in respect of noise emanating from the pub."
"In my view, evidence of music noise nuisance from the pub on other dates would have considerably strengthened the defendant's defence that the complainant and witnesses were mistaken as to the source of the noise on the dates of the allegations. I accept that there would have been further cross-examination of the witnesses as to the pub if the defence had had disclosure of this information. These problems cannot be remedied by the admission of the information at this stage, nor by recalling witnesses as the defendant has already called witnesses. This is an abuse of the process."
"Was I right in law to stay the proceedings as an abuse of the Court's process by reason of the late disclosure of the list of noise nuisance complaints, a noise abatement notice and two cautions for breach relating to the Dartmouth Public House..."
"We would like to add to that statement of principle by stressing a point which is sometimes overlooked, namely that the trial process itself is equipped to deal with the bulk of complaints which have in recent Divisional Court cases founded applications for a stay."
It is, furthermore, only in exceptional cases that justices will exercise the jurisdiction to stay: see, for example, R v Derby Crown Court ex parte Brooks  80 Cr App R 164, and particularly a passage in the judgment of Sir Roger Ormrod at page 168.