QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF THOMAS HILLMAN||(CLAIMANT)|
|RICHMOND MAGISTRATES' COURT||(DEFENDANT)|
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)
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
Crown Copyright ©
Defendant not represented, CPS have dates to avoid, but inform the court that there are threats of injury in this case, over 300 letters sent to complainant. I explained to defendant that he will not be able to cross-examine the complainant. Defendant requested one-week adjournment to instruct a solicitor. I made it very clear to the defendant that he should instruct a solicitor if he wanted to cross-examine the complainant, and should do this ASAP today if possible. Remanded on conditional bail to 21/11/02 for trial date to be set."
It will be immediately observed from that note that the chairman of the bench did not seek to inform the defendant that he would not be able to cross-examine the complainant. Such communication appears to have been made by Miss Howell herself.
"14.11.02; the Defendant needs further time to instruct solicitors, alternatively the Defendant wishes to conduct the trial. Order made pursuant to section 36 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 prohibiting the Defendant from cross-examining particular witness."
"I would invite both the clerk to the Magistrates' Court and the CPS to file some detailed evidence as to what they say happened on the material occasions".
"Defendant not represented, defendant requests a preliminary hearing on the point of cross-examination of the complainant, set down for legal argument on 5/12/02. Trial date fixed for 2 days on the 27th/28th January 2003. Defendant advised he must be represented but (cannot compel it), defendant indicated to the court that a barrister friend may represent him. Remanded on conditional bail as before".
"21.11.02; the Defendant challenges the decision made on 14.11.02. Adjourned to 05.12.02 for legal argument. Trial date set for 27th and 28th January 2003".
"Letter sent to the court today from the defendant, requesting an adjournment of the legal argument hearing on the 5/12/03. Letter handed to the bench. CPS object to the adjournment request. Citing that the defendant has had numerous adjournments in this matter, and has been represented at various times throughout the proceedings by solicitors, and has had sufficient time and ample opportunity to prepare. The interests of the complainant also need to be taken into consideration in the interest of Justice. The issue in question has been raised at subsequent pre trial reviews and advice given to the defendant. Adjournment request refused."
"The Defendant seeks more time to prepare for the legal argument listed on 05.12.02. Application is refused." ]
"Unsuccessful paper application to apply to have hearing of 5th December set aside on grounds that cannot be fairly decided before trial. In the alternative to adjourn to polish legal arguments."
"The CPS ask the court to make an order of its own motion, to prevent the defendant (Mr Hillman) from cross-examining the complainant in person.
We have considered the representations made today by both the CPS and Mr Hillman, and take note of the submissions made by Mr Hillman on the law, which he addressed us to.
However, we order that a direction under [S.36 YJCEA 1999] be made. Having heard submissions from both parties at length today, we are satisfied that the indication given on the 14/11/02 was correct. In particular we take account of Subsections (b) [and] (c) of [S.36(3)(3) YJCEA 1999].
There has been no material change of circumstances since 14/11/02 and we find that in the interests of justice a direction should be given and Mr Hillman (the defendant) should seek representation if he wishes to cross-examine the complainant."
"Defendant's Legal Argument to revoke the order made on 14.11.02 is unsuccessful."
"5th December 2002 hearing re section 36 direction. Clerk misleads bench that direction already given and hence they are only interested in section 37 arguments. I ask to adjourn to polish up my legal arguments. This is turned down after Crown Prosecution Service say that I have already had lots of adjournments and complainant wants things hurried along (actually it would have made no difference to her as any adjournment of this would not affect trial date). Magistrates listen to clerk re section 36 and give a judgment that a section 36 direction has already been made in the interests of justice and that there is no change in material circumstances."
"The court may discharge a direction if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so, and may do so either -
(a) on an application made by a party to the proceedings, if there has been a material change of circumstances since the relevant time, or
(b) of its own motion."