Recently Reported Cases

James v Director of Public Prosecutions (2004)

[2004] EWHC 1663 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Mitting J) 24/6/2004

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MAGISTRATES COURTS : CRIMINAL CHARGES : AMENDMENTS : POWERS OF MAGISTRATES' COURT TO AMEND CHARGES AGAINST ACCUSED : s.4(1) MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971 : s.123(1) MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT 1980 : CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS ACT 1981 : s.17A MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT 1980

The magistrates' court had the power to amend a charge against an accused at the conclusion of his defence and to substitute an offence under a different Act provided it caused no injustice. Where no injustice was caused, the amendment of the charge did not require justices to re-open mode of trial proceedings.

The claimant (J) appealed by way of case stated against the decision of a magistrates' court to allow the defendant to amend the charge brought against her. J was charged with supplying cannabis resin to a prisoner contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 s.4(1). The background facts were not disputed by the parties. At the end of J's defence submissions were made that the evidence did not prove actual supply. That prompted the prosecution to apply, relying on the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 s.123(1), to amend the charges against J to attempting to supply cannabis resin contrary to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. J objected to the amendment and contended that it came too late, it was inappropriate at that stage to substitute an offence under a different Act and that it was not a minor but a major amendment. The justices allowed the amendment and held that it did no injustice to J as the same wrongdoing was alleged and that it was a middle range amendment. J was subsequently convicted of the substituted offence and appealed. J submitted that she was prejudiced by her loss of chance to plead guilty to the offence that she was convicted of at an earlier opportunity.

HELD: (1) The justices were right in law to allow such an amendment provided no injustice was caused to J. The wording of s.123 was very wide and there was nothing in any case which contained any restriction on it that was relevant to the instant case. In the crown court, where a charge did not reflect the facts it was amended. There was no fetter on the power of the crown court nor was there any fetter on the power of the magistrates' court to allow such an amendment. Garfield v Maddocks [1973] 2 All ER 303 considered. (2) J could have pleaded guilty once the charge was amended or she could have indicated at the start of the trial that she would have pleaded guilty to a charge of attempting to supply a Class B drug. (3) The justices were correct not to restart mode of trial proceedings. The purpose of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 s.17A was that an accused fully understood his rights when an offence was triable either way and for him to enter a plea. Where the amendment of the charge against an accused caused no injustice it would be absurd to require justices, who had the power to substitute one charge for another, to re-open mode of trial proceedings.

Appeal dismissed.

Counsel:
For the claimant: Ian Potter
For the defendant: Hugh Davies

Solicitors:
For the claimant: Richard Body & Co
For the defendant: Crown Prosecution Service