• CRIMINAL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Regina Vs. I, P, O, I & G

The question in this interlocutory appeal is whether on the facts of this case the judge could lawfully rule that although he had conducted a preparatory hearing he should not be the trial judge.

A decision that a judge who has conducted a preparatory hearing should not conduct the trial is one which must be made by the judge concerned. It must not be made administratively, for example by the listing officer. Such a decision must be made only after a hearing at which all parties have had the opportunity to make representations. The ordinary rule is that the judge who has had conduct of the preparatory hearing should also conduct the trial. That rule may not be departed from without compelling reason. Before departing from it, the judge, if not himself the court's resident judge, ought to consult that judge, and all judges should consult one of the circuit's presiding judges; they will of course respect any directions or advice given. Active steps must be taken in the planning of court business and judicial commitments to avoid wherever possible the necessity for a judge to find himself having to consider leaving any complex case between case management/preparatory hearing and trial; if, unusually, that necessity should arise in a preparatory hearing case (as it did here) the question to be resolved is not a matter of law but of judgment for the judge; this court could interfere only if his decision were one which no reasonable judge could arrive at.

• CIVIL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

Strand Transport Services v Gary Whitworth

Argument with regard to the dismissal of an employee from his job by his employer on grounds of redundancy. The employment tribunal upheld the claim of the employee for unfair dismissal. The employer argued that there was a strong likelihood that would have been fairly dismissed, even if the employer had, as it maintained it had, complied with the requirements of procedural fairness. Whether this principle would eliminate the compensatory element from an award for unfair dismissal? When the ET judgment is read with care from beginning to end, as it should be, the reason why the employer lost is plain enough. Its case was that it had fairly and reasonably dismissed him for redundancy following actual consideration of, and consultation with him on, the "swallowing up" point. That point was neither mentioned in the note of the critical meeting with the employee nor in the ET3. The employer's evidence on that aspect of redundancy in the witness statements and in the answers of Mr Greenhalgh in cross examination was not accepted. It was correct for the ET to conclude that there was "no evidence" to support the Polkey point in the commonly accepted sense that no relevant facts were established by credible evidence. According to Ms D'Souza the Strand witnesses were not even asked whether dismissal would have resulted, if a fair procedure had been applied.