The Crown Prosecution Service, R (On the Application Of) v Ipswich Crown Court

When deciding whether to extend a custody time limit, the court must assess whether the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition during the period to which that limit relates. Delays before the accused was charged are irrelevant to that statutory question. The court must also keep separate the conditions for extending the limit from its residual discretion whether to grant an extension. A decision based on irrelevant considerations must be quashed and reconsidered, even though the court on reconsideration may reach the same substantive outcome.

The Crown Prosecution Service sought judicial review of Judge Goodin’s refusal to extend the custody time limit of an accused awaiting trial on two drug-importation conspiracy charges. The prosecution relied on the unavailability of an earlier trial date. The defence argued that the prosecution had failed to act with all due diligence and expedition because the accused had been arrested and charged later than might have been possible, and because a helpful summary of the evidence was served only shortly before the plea and case management hearing.

The central issue was whether the judge had lawfully applied section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

1. Claim allowed. The refusal to extend the custody time limit was quashed and the matter was remitted to Judge Goodin for reconsideration as soon as possible.

2. Under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the court must first consider whether the need for an extension arose from a specified good and sufficient cause and whether the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition. Even if both conditions are satisfied, the word “may” leaves the court with a discretion whether to extend the limit: R v Manchester Crown Court ex p McDonald [1999] 1 Cr.App.R 409.

3. The due-diligence inquiry concerns the period to which the custody time limit relates. Since proceedings begin when the accused is charged, delays in arrest and charge cannot be considered under section 22(3)(b): R v Birmingham Crown Court ex p Bell [1997] 2 C.App.R 363.

4. The prosecution was not legally obliged to provide a separate summary identifying the evidence relevant to the accused after serving the evidence itself. Nevertheless, the late provision of such a summary could potentially support a finding that the prosecution had failed to act with due diligence and expedition. That issue had to be assessed on its own merits.

5. The judge had wrongly treated the late arrest and charge, and the likely length of detention after expiry of the time limit, as relevant to the due-diligence question. Those matters belonged, if at all, to the separate discretionary stage. It could not be said that the judge would have reached the same conclusion without taking them into account. On reconsideration, the judge was required to consider the timing of the evidential summary and any other properly advanced material, followed by the separate discretionary question.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim for judicial review was allowed. The Crown Court’s refusal to extend the custody time limit was quashed and the issue was remitted for reconsideration.