The defendant challenged extension of the custody time limit, saying that the prosecuting authorities had not acted with due diligence to take the case forward.
Held: Though the prosecutor had not acted as required, in this case the actual reason for the delay lay at the feet of the court, and the prosecution’s failure had not contributed. Accordingly the court could extend the custody time limit.
Judges:
Lord Woolf LCJ, Rose LJ, Royce J
Citations:
Times 09-Mar-2004, [2004] EWHC 361 (Admin), Gazette 18-Mar-2004, [2004] 1 WLR 1623
Links:
Statutes:
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Central Criminal Court Ex Parte Bennett QBD 25-Jan-1999
When a court considered whether to extend the custody time limits a court must not make an allowance in favour of the prosecution for difficulties caused by the victim’s illness. Subsebtions 22(3)(a) and 22(3)(b) had both to be fulfilled. . .
Cited – Regina v Leeds Crown Court ex parte Vincent Quereshi, John Bagoutie, Terrance Callaghan Admn 18-May-1999
Where a court decided that there was good reason to extend the custody time limit, but the prosecution had not proceeded with due diligence, the court could still extend the limit where the prosecution delay had not contributed to the need for the . .
Cited – Regina (Bannister) v Guildford Crown Court Admn 2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McDonald; Regina v Leeds Crown Court, ex parte Hunt; Regina v Winchester Crown Court, ex parte Forbes, ex parte Wilson and Mason CACD 19-Nov-1998
When considering applications to extend the custody time limits, courts should have in view the purpose of the rules. It would be dangerous to give a list of good reasons for an extension. The court must itself consider the fulfilment of the section . .
Cited – Regina v Leeds Crown Court, Ex parte Bagoutie 31-May-1999
Lord Bingham: ‘The court made plain in Ex p McDonald, as indeed is plain on the face of the statute, that when seeking an extension or a further extension of the custody time limit the Crown must show that there is good and sufficient [reason] for . .
Cited by:
Cited – O v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
Cited – Thomas v Central Criminal Court; Stubbs v Same Admn 7-Jul-2006
The applicants sought judicial review of decisions to extend the custody time limits.
Held: Where a further extension is sought, it is in the public interest and the interests of justice that the court should confine its consideration under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194796
