Leask, R (on the application of) v South Western Magistrates Court

When a statutory time limit may be extended for good reason and, separately, in exceptional circumstances, those questions must be considered independently. The absence of a good reason does not preclude exceptional circumstances. A decision-maker must address both limbs before refusing an extension. A failure to consider a relevant limb is an error of law. Although professional advisers are generally responsible for ascertaining the law and should be cautious about relying on informal oral guidance from court staff, such guidance and other relevant procedural circumstances may require consideration when the extension application is reconsidered.

The claimant sought judicial review of the South Western Magistrates’ Court’s refusal to entertain his claim for defence costs following his acquittal. The claim was submitted outside the agreed three-month time limit under the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986.

The court found that a legal adviser had orally indicated that there was no applicable time limit and had explained the basic requirements for submitting the claim. The defendant nevertheless treated the claimant’s lack of awareness of the time limit as decisive and did not expressly consider exceptional circumstances. The central issue was whether that approach lawfully applied the extension provisions.

1. The decision was quashed and remitted. The defendant’s refusal to extend time was unlawful because it proceeded on the mistaken basis that the relevant conversation had not occurred and failed to consider exceptional circumstances.
2. Regulation 12 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 creates two separate questions. First, the decision-maker must consider whether the failure to comply with the time limit was for good reason. Secondly, even where there was no good reason, the decision-maker must consider whether exceptional circumstances justify an extension. The first finding does not preclude the second.
3. The court applied the approach in R v the Clerk to the North Kent Justices, ex parte McGoldrick and Co (court reference CO/2392/93), in which the same two-stage analysis was identified.
4. On reconsideration, the decision-maker was invited to consider the oral assurance found as a fact, the absence of a formal response to the claimant’s letter seeking procedural guidance, and the later correspondence from the costs draftsman. Those matters were not exhaustive, and the court did not determine the eventual outcome.
5. It remained open to the decision-maker to take into account that parties, particularly professional advisers, are ordinarily responsible for establishing the law and should not rely uncritically on informal comments by court staff or officers. Costs were not awarded against the court on the basis that responsibility for the circumstances could not be attributed entirely, or necessarily at all, to the court.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. The challenged decision was the South Western Magistrates’ Court’s refusal, by letters dated 21 and 28 June 2006, to extend time for the claimant’s costs claim.