Court’s refusal to adjourn for defendant who sacked solicitors not unreasonable

A Crown court judge’s refusal to adjourn an appeal hearing for a man who had sacked his solicitors at the last minute was not unreasonable, the High Court has ruled.

Asif Khan had appealed his magistrates' court conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty. The appeal was heard at Manchester Crown Court on 17 November 2021 before Recorder Hannam KC, who was told Khan was unrepresented.

It emerged that Khan had initially received advice from the duty solicitor in the magistrates court but ‘he was dissatisfied with this and instructed a firm of solicitors privately for the magistrates' court proceedings’, the High Court was told. After his conviction, Khan instructed the same solicitors to bring the appeal.

However in a decision on a High Court judicial review claim this week, Mr Justice Foxton said: ‘It is apparent that in the period after the decision was taken, Mr Khan became increasingly unhappy with what he saw as the lack of responsiveness on the part of his solicitors.

‘On 15 November there was contact between Mr Khan and his solicitor at which Mr Khan became aware that the previous counsel was not available for the appeal and that another barrister would be instructed. He also became aware that his solicitor was out of the country. At that point, Mr Khan withdrew his instructions from his solicitors and sought to instruct other solicitors. However, they were unable to accept instructions for the appeal on 17 November 2021 due to the short notice.’

Khan appeared in person and made an application to adjourn the appeal hearing, which was refused.

‘The court concluded that it had been Mr Khan’s decision to sack his solicitors at a late stage which had left him without legal representation that day’, Foxton said. ‘The court was entitled to, and did have regard to, the unwelcome delay and increased pressure on the courts at a time of severe stress on the criminal justice system which an adjournment would cause.’ 

The judicial review was dismissed. 

This article is now closed for comment.