Obstruction of the Highway - Dismissed: 06/07/21

Court date



CoL court 1

Hearing date:

06/07/2021 (was previously adjourned on the 04/04/2- related to ownership of the road/who should have bought the charge)

Bench (DJ or JPs)

D.J. Godfrey

Charged with:

 S137 WILFUL OBSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY  10/09/2020  Birdcage Walk

Represented by:

Nick Goss (Birds)

Please outline key points in prosecution and defence cases.


Defence :  The defendant had tried to come to the trial but her pre-booked train had been cancelled. This, plus the fact that she had a cough, meant that she went home and sent an application for. CVP .


Judge: people should attend their  trails – she is 22 and not particularly vulnerable

When the defendant appeared on the screen he stated the first point but went on to say that he accepted that she had tried ,would allow it to continue and would not hold it against her.

He confirmed with the defence that they were going to put a case that the police officer had not issued to warnings appropriately.  He asked if the PC was available to give witness. 


Defence: tried to raise the issue of the road being on crown land but the judge said that he wanted to deal with the issue of the police officer first. After the trial, I spoke with Nick Goss who explained that Jenny had not put the ‘crown land’ aspect in the skeleton ££££££


Prosecution:  police officer had received an injury to his leg, had to go to hospital and was now on sick leave.


  • asked if defence were notified and prosecution said that the court had been notified.
  • asked (rhetorical probably)  why, as the defendant was appearing  remotely,  the police officer couldn’t do the same
  • Asked when prosecution had contacted the police to ask for the witness



  • letter sent to police in June
  • reply received day before trial


Then there was a discussion about the issue of the Royal Parks road. 

Defence :  said that it had been suggested that there would be a full review of cases


  • not notified about this
  • not notified in this particular case
  • 1851 Crown Act-public access therefore govt. responsible for road



  • Returned to issue of PC
  • Gave prosecution a short period of time to contact the police and clarify the situation re the PC concerned

The prosecution was unable to do this.

Judge: Summary

  • Quoted comments by ( what sounded like) Pectrie (Lord Gross)
  • Adjournment should be a last resort
  • Need for expedition
  • Delay brings justice system into disrepute
  • Particularly needs  to be speedy in a magistrates court
  • PC  Valdari was a required witness
  • Court hasn’t been told when he was injured, or what the injury was
  • Crown has not given enough info for an adjournment
  • Case dismissed


Defence: np application for costs

Was defence evidence submitted in writing?


Did defence witness(es) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined?

Defendant not required to speak as case was dismissed

What was the verdict?



What was the sentence?



What costs were awarded?