Thomas v Central Criminal Court

When a further custody time-limit extension is sought, the statutory requirements of good and sufficient cause and due diligence and expedition ordinarily focus on the circumstances giving rise to that further extension. Earlier delay may be considered where it was the root cause of the need for the later extension. Otherwise, a later application should not be used to reopen an earlier extension decision. Judicial review requires rigorous scrutiny, but the decision remains that of the Crown Court judge. The reviewing court should intervene only for legal error or a decision that cannot reasonably stand.

Thomas and Stubbs sought judicial review of a decision by His Honour Judge Paget QC at the Central Criminal Court extending custody time limits from 19 June to 11 September 2006. The extension was sought under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The claimants argued that earlier periods of prosecution inactivity meant that the prosecution had not acted with all due diligence and expedition, and that the judge had applied the wrong temporal approach. The central issue was whether paragraph (b) required an overall review of delay, including delay relevant to an earlier extension, or focused on the circumstances giving rise to the further extension.

1. The applications were refused. The Divisional Court held that the natural construction of section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 gives paragraphs (a) and (b) the same temporal focus where a further extension is sought. The court must consider the circumstances giving rise to that further extension.
2. Under section 22(3)(a), the court considers whether the need for the particular extension is due to one of the specified causes, including some other good and sufficient cause. Under paragraph (b), it considers whether the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition in relation to the matters giving rise to that need.
3. Earlier delay is not wholly irrelevant. If the defendant shows that earlier delay was the root cause of the need for the later extension, that issue may properly be considered at the later hearing. Ordinarily, however, a defendant should challenge the earlier extension when it is sought. A later application should not be used to impugn an earlier decision as legally flawed, subject to appropriate judicial review under the principles identified in R (on application of Gibson v Crown Court at Winchester [2004] 1 WLR 1623.
4. Judicial review in custody time-limit cases requires rigorous scrutiny, particularly because human rights are engaged. Nevertheless, the decision is for the Crown Court judge. The reviewing court should not substitute its own assessment and should intervene only where the discretion was wrongly exercised or the decision cannot survive scrutiny.
5. Judge Paget had considered the chronology, the amount of material required, pressures on the investigating agencies and the inaccurate information supplied by 3G. His conclusion that the prosecution had acted with all due diligence and expedition was open to him. The applications therefore failed. Separate orders for detailed assessment were made for the publicly funded costs.

Central Criminal Court: His Honour Judge Paget QC extended the custody time limits for the defendants from 19 June to 11 September 2006.

High Court (Administrative Court): The applications for judicial review were refused.