Yilmaz, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

A bill of indictment is preferred when it is formally presented to the Crown Court with the objective intention that the statutory process of scrutiny and signature will be undertaken. Mere delivery of a proposed indictment for the court’s information, including for a bail hearing, does not amount to preferment. The relevant custody time limit therefore begins on formal preferment, not on an earlier administrative delivery which lacks that purpose.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Common Serjeant’s decision to extend custody time limits pending his retrial. His original conviction had been quashed and a retrial ordered. Proposed joinder indictments were delivered to the Central Criminal Court on 8 and 12 February 2007 in connection with a bail application, but the indictment was signed at a plea and case management hearing on 16 March 2007. The issue was whether the indictment had been preferred before it was signed, so that the 112-day period had already expired when the extension application was made.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Common Serjeant had jurisdiction to extend the custody time limits because the application was made within time.

2. Under section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 and rule 14 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, preferment is the formal presentation of charges before the Crown Court. It must be accompanied by the intention that the proper officer will scrutinise the bill for compliance with the statutory requirements and sign it if those requirements are met.

3. The relevant intention is assessed objectively. The question is what an informed but independent observer would understand the presenter’s purpose to be at the time of delivery.

4. The phrase in paragraph 5(3) of the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 must be construed consistently with the preferment process in the 1933 Act. Delivery of a proposed indictment to the court for information in connection with a bail hearing did not satisfy that process. The documents were not preferred on 8 or 12 February 2007.

5. Preferment occurred at the plea and case management hearing on 16 March 2007, when the bill was presented and signed. The prosecution’s application to extend custody time limits was consequently made in time. Lord Justice Richards agreed with Aikens J’s reasons and conclusion.

Not stated in the judgment.