Polat & Ors v Wood Green Crown Court

When reviewing an extension of custody time limits, the court must assess whether the Crown Court acted within the discretion conferred by the relevant legislation and governing authorities. In circumstances involving widespread listing difficulties across London, the absence of particular enquiries about transferring a case to another court does not necessarily make an extension unlawful. A later offer of an earlier hearing date is generally relevant to the decision under review only with caution, since the parties may have prepared on the basis of the original date. The court may, however, reconsider the position if systemic difficulties persist without improvement.

The claimants sought permission to bring judicial review of a decision by HHJ Lyons at Wood Green Crown Court on 3 October 2007 extending custody time limits. The claimants had been arrested in April 2007 and were awaiting a trial listed for February 2008. The court was told that significant disclosure, including mobile-phone evidence, had not been provided in accordance with the timetable.

The challenge alleged that the Crown Court had failed adequately to consider whether the trial could be transferred to another court. An earlier hearing date was later offered, but the parties preferred to retain the February date because relevant prosecution material was not ready. The central issue was whether the decision of 3 October was unlawful.

1. Application refused. The decision to extend the custody time limits was within the Crown Court judge’s discretion.
2. The court treated the decision in Kalonji as governing the position. The present case was not materially distinguishable. The judge had taken into account the widespread difficulties affecting courts across London and was entitled to conclude that listing officers could not continually investigate whether individual cases could be moved between courts.
3. The absence of a specific direction requiring enquiries about transfer to another court was therefore not a material distinction. The court was concerned with the lawfulness of the decision made on 3 October, not simply with whether a later date had become available.
4. The later offer of a hearing on 5 November would not, in any event, have materially altered the assessment. A court exercising its discretion on a judicial review application should approach subsequent events cautiously where the parties had prepared their case on the assumption that the original, more distant trial date would stand.
5. Lord Justice Thomas made three observations for the future. Circuit presiding judges might reinforce compliance with timetables, consider whether custody time limits should be addressed when distant trial dates are fixed, and regard Kalonji as governing the immediate position. If the systemic situation did not improve, the court indicated that it might reconsider whether further applications should be entertained.
6. Permission was declined. The court also directed that the Legal Services Commission’s costs be assessed.

The application for judicial review was referred to the Divisional Court by a single judge. No citation for the single judge’s decision is stated in the judgment. The Divisional Court refused permission.