by Annette Wilson

Bungling police and council bosses have been blasted by a judge for prejudicing the trial of four men.

Judge Adele Williams sensationally halted the case after ruling the accused were all denied a fair hearing.

She then warned Canterbury City Council, Kent Police and the CPS must protect the proper course of justice.

It happened after the council published a licensing application supplied by Kent Police on its website.

The application contained details of an incident outside the Ocakbasi kebab shop in St Peter Street.

The victim suffered a split lip, broken tooth and cut to his chin after being kicked while on the ground.

Six men were arrested on suspicion of attacking the passer-by.

Two of them, aged 18 and 30, later admitted affray and are due to be sentenced.

But the other four denied affray were due stand trial later this year.

The four accused were Patrick Lee, 31, of Whitstable Road, Mohabat Khan, 21, of Pretoria Street, Ali Aslan, 36, of St Peter Street, and William Ferneyhough, 27, of Walden Court.

Ferneyhough, of Walden Court, also denied a further charge of assault causing actual bodily harm.

Sitting at the city's crown court, Judge Williams said it was vital criminal proceedings were protected against interference.

Judge Williams had adjourned the case in January after being told material concerning a licensing application had been put on the net.

At a later hearing she was told the case papers had been removed.

But last month Judge Williams was told although the material had been taken down, it had got onto another site.

Ironically, the papers contained evidence the defence had been trying to get from the Crown.

Prosecutors then dropped the case against Mr Aslan and Mr Khan conceding they would not get a fair trial.

An application then followed on behalf of Mr Ferneyhough and Mr Lee to stop the proceedings against them.

Giving her judgement, Judge Williams said: "From all the material available to me it is quite apparent the police disclosed to Canterbury City Council the case papers, including written statements, police notebooks and crime reports.

"The names had been redacted from the statements but redacted statements can easily be identified as pertaining to this incident by reason of the date of the incident and the content of statements."

Earlier unredacted material relating to earlier incidents at the kebab shop was given to the council and made public on their site.

Judge Williams said she appreciated licensing applications and reviews of licences should not be held up awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings.

But she added this should not mean such proceedings should be jeopardised by police supplying information which may get into the public domain.

"If there is a tension between competing interests, the criminal trial must not be put in jeopardy," said Judge Williams.

"It is deeply ironic that while the police were failing to discharge their obligations in relation to disclosure in criminal proceedings, so that no less than three mention hearings were necessary at this court, at the same time they were supplying to the city council all the case papers and many of the matters of disclosure being sought by the defence."

Judge Williams was told by lawyers for both police and the Canterbury Council that steps had now been taken to stop it happening again.

She gave a warning that police needed to look very carefully at their procedures and said she was satisfied Canterbury City Council had already taken the necessary steps.

Mark Ellender, the head of legal and democratic services at the council, said: "The council apologised unreservedly to the court and regrets the fact this incident happened.

"The judge was satisfied the council acted responsibly as soon as existence of the material on our website was drawn to our attention and that we have taken steps to ensure something like this cannot happen again.

"We also understand the police are taking a number of measures so that the sensitivity of material they supply to us is more clearly indicated."