Hadfield v Manchester Crown Court

For an extension of a custody time limit, the prosecution must show good and sufficient cause and that it has acted with due diligence and expedition. The standard is practical and reasonable, not perfection assessed with hindsight. Relevant considerations include the nature and complexity of the case, the preparation required, the conduct of the defence, dependence on persons outside the prosecution’s control, and other matters genuinely bearing on preparation for trial.

Judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision is not an appeal on the merits. The reviewing court asks whether the decision was lawful and rational. It should be slow to interfere where the Crown Court has heard full argument and explained its conclusion.

The claimant was awaiting trial on an armed robbery charge. The Recorder of Manchester extended his custody time limit to 5 October 2007, taking it beyond the scheduled commencement of the trial. The claimant sought judicial review, contending that the prosecution had not acted with all due expedition when obtaining and serving cell-site evidence.

The claim focused on delay before counsel advised that cell-site evidence should be obtained and delay while authorisation was secured. Permission had initially been refused on the papers but was granted on renewal. The central issues were whether the Recorder had applied the correct statutory test and whether his conclusion that the prosecution had acted with due diligence and expedition was perverse.

1. Claim dismissed. The statutory conditions for extending a custody time limit under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 were that there was good and sufficient cause and that the prosecution had acted with all due expedition. Only the second condition was in issue.
2. The Recorder had correctly applied the practical standard stated in R v Manchester Crown Court ex parte McDonald [1999] 1 Cr.App.R 409. The prosecution need not show that every stage was completed as quickly and efficiently as humanly possible. The question was whether a competent prosecutor, conscious of the duty to bring the case to trial as quickly as reasonably and fairly possible, had shown the required diligence and expedition.
3. Relevant considerations included the nature and complexity of the case, the preparation required, the conduct of the defence, the extent to which the prosecutor depended on co-operation from persons outside its control, and other matters directly and genuinely bearing on preparation for trial.
4. The Recorder was entitled to focus on the period before counsel advised that cell-site evidence should be obtained and the subsequent delay in obtaining authorisation. His conclusion that matters could have proceeded more quickly but that the statutory standard was nevertheless met was sensible and rational. The later delay was not shown to disclose prosecutorial criticism, particularly because experts outside the prosecution were involved.
5. The Administrative Court was not exercising an appellate function. Its role was to determine the lawfulness of the Crown Court’s decision. It was especially reluctant to interfere with a decision reached after full argument unless a sufficient case of unlawfulness was shown. The Recorder’s conclusion could not be characterised as perverse.

• Recorder of Manchester: extended the claimant’s custody time limit to 5 October 2007.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review claim and declined to disturb the Recorder’s decision.