Chief Magistrate Finds That A Year Of Summary Court Adjournments Agreed To By The DPP Is “Unfair” To Defendant.
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
During a hearing in Summary Court today, December 3, 2024, the Chief Magistrate heard that DPP counsel agreed to a further adjournment in a case that has already been delayed for over a year. The case involves Eric James Bergstrom, who is charged with taking or permitting another “person to take a specimen of a protected species.”
The Chief Magistrate raised the concern of delays because the matter has remained unresolved since it came before the Summary Court in September 2023.
The delays are significant because they show a disregard for Practice Direction No. 5/2015, which requires Summary Court cases to be “dealt with justly and expeditiously.”
Practice Direction No. 5/2015 also discourages delays and encourages cases to be managed to avoid “unnecessary hearings.”
In addition, Practice Direction No. 5/2015 states, “Every matter to be tried before the Summary Court should aim to be concluded within a period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the First Hearing.”
In the circumstances, the Bergstrom matter has been subject to delays of over 12 months, which exceeds the time for conclusion for Summary Court matters.
Today’s request for a lengthy adjournment, which the DPP agreed to, concerns further protracted discussions with the Department of the Environment and a “third party.”
Although the Chief Magistrate did not note that agreements by the DPP to such delays appear to fall foul of Practice Direction No. 5/2015, the Chief Magistrate stressed that “it’s really not fair to the defendant.”
“It is really also not possible for us to just be adjourning matters for [ongoing] discussions,” the Chief Magistrate added.
The Chief Magistrate then noted that the matter would be heard again in mid-January 2025, which appears to be the Summary Court’s agreement to a final adjournment. It is expected that, by this time, the matter will be resolved outside the Summary Court and not result in further wasting of its time.
