Walpole v Director of Public Prosecutions

An extension of a custody time limit is lawful only where the statutory requirements are met: there must be good and sufficient cause, and the prosecution must have acted with all due expedition. The court must assess those criteria even where the extension sought is short. A judge’s need to adjourn an application to ensure that it can be properly heard may constitute sufficient cause in the circumstances. The resulting decision is not unlawful merely because the hearing was affected by the court’s existing trial commitments, provided the statutory criteria were complied with. The decision remains subject to review for Wednesbury unreasonableness.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by His Honour Judge McNaught at Swindon Crown Court on 27 August 2003. The judge extended the custody time limit for six days so that the application could be heard after allowing time for a proper hearing and while another trial was continuing.

The claimant alleged that the judge had failed to enquire into the statutory requirements, had failed to give reasons, and had prioritised administrative convenience over the custody time-limit application. The central issue was whether the extension complied with section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and was lawful on public-law principles.

1. Permission and disposition. The claim was arguable, so permission was granted. The application for judicial review was dismissed.
2. Statutory criteria. Section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 permits the appropriate court to extend a custody time limit before expiry where it is satisfied that there is good and sufficient cause and that the prosecution has acted with all due expedition. Those criteria applied notwithstanding that the extension was limited to six days.
3. Assessment of the Crown Court decision. The reviewing court inferred that the judge had adjourned because there was insufficient time to deal with the application properly while he was conducting a trial and had not yet read the papers or received skeleton arguments. That provided a rational basis for the limited extension. The court held that there had been compliance with the statutory criteria.
4. Public-law review. The decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable. The judge’s practical management of the hearing did not show that administrative convenience had unlawfully replaced the statutory test.

The claimant’s request for the appropriate legal-aid determination was granted.

The application concerned a decision of Swindon Crown Court made on 27 August 2003 by His Honour Judge McNaught, extending the custody time limit to permit a later hearing. The Administrative Court granted permission but dismissed the judicial-review application.