Hughes, R (on the application of) v Woolwich Crown Court & Anor

When deciding whether to extend custody time limits under Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the court must consider whether the prosecution acted with all due expedition. The prosecution’s duty to investigate and obtain material reasonably capable of assisting either the prosecution or the defence may arise before service of a formal defence statement. A defence failure contributing to delay is relevant, but it does not remove the need for a proper assessment of the prosecution’s diligence. A decision extending custody must therefore account for all material circumstances and apply the necessary balancing exercise.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Woolwich Crown Court’s refusal to accept that custody time limits should not be extended. The prosecution had failed to obtain telephone records potentially relevant to the complainant’s account and the defendant’s consent-based defence, despite prosecuting counsel having advised in April 2006 that the records should be obtained. The defence later requested the records formally, but the prosecution did not act until shortly before the postponed trial date. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had correctly concluded that the prosecution had acted with all due expedition.

1. Permission and substantive claim. Permission was granted and the court proceeded to determine the substantive judicial review claim. The claim succeeded and the Crown Court’s decision was quashed.
2. Under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, custody time limits may be extended only where there is good and sufficient cause and the prosecution has acted with all due expedition.
3. The prosecution’s disclosure and investigative duties are not triggered only by service of a formal defence statement. It must pursue reasonable lines of inquiry and obtain material which may assist either side. The telephone records were potentially material from at least April 2006, when prosecuting counsel recognised their significance.
4. The defence’s late service of its statement and late request for disclosure were relevant factors, because the defence had contributed to the delay. They did not, however, excuse the prosecution’s failure to act on earlier knowledge and on the letter of 23 June 2006.
5. The Crown Court judge failed to take relevant matters into account and therefore misdirected himself. Although the Administrative Court should be reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the trial judge, the necessary balancing exercise showed that the prosecution had not acted with all due diligence.
6. The matter was remitted to the Woolwich Crown Court. Bail had to be granted, subject to conditions determined by the Crown Court. The costs issue was to be dealt with through central funds, subject to the constitution of the appropriate court.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate history. It concerns judicial review of the Woolwich Crown Court’s decision of 4 August 2006.