The High Court has ruled that a District Judge was wrong to refuse prosecution applications to amend two charge sheets in a case involving alleged possession of diamorphine for sale or supply.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 12 July 2021 in a case stated under section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. The question referred by the District Judge was whether she was correct to exercise her discretion by refusing the amendments. The High Court’s answer was “no”.
The charge sheets alleged that Jordan Grimes possessed diamorphine on 24 and 25 January 2018, contrary to section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1988 and 1993. The prosecution sought to replace those references with the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2017, as amended. The District Judge refused the applications, citing the delay in seeking the amendments and the importance of the regulations to the alleged offences.
The High Court said the case stated before it concerned only the two diamorphine charges. A separate charge involving alprazolam had been dismissed by the District Court and was not part of the question referred. The High Court also noted that Grimes faced separate charges of simple possession, but those were not at issue in the case stated.
The judgment said the applicable test was whether the defect in the charge sheets had misled or prejudiced the accused, or might affect the merits of the case. It held that delay in seeking an amendment was not, by itself, a reason to refuse one. In the High Court’s assessment, there was no discernible prejudice from the proposed amendments; any possible prejudice could also have been addressed by an adjournment.
The court said the regulations did not need to be cited on the charge sheets for the charges to be valid. It concluded that the District Judge had applied the wrong legal basis when refusing the amendments.
The ruling answered the legal question put in the case stated. It did not determine whether Grimes committed the alleged offences or make findings on the evidence against him.