Hampshire County Council v Beazley & Anor

The court granted leave for the applicant’s case to proceed to a full hearing. It made no determination of the substantive issue. The court directed that the pending Crown Court application for an extension of time could be explained by the fact that this case had awaited the Supreme Court judgments in Waya.

The applicant, Hampshire County Council, sought leave in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in relation to Mr Beazley and another defendant. The court was told that a two-year period would expire on 10 December and that an application for an extension of time was pending in the Crown Court.

The court had directed that the matter await the Supreme Court judgments in Waya, as they might affect the appropriate approach. The immediate issue was whether leave should be granted and what directions should be made pending a full hearing.

1. Leave granted. The court was satisfied that leave should be granted, but expressly gave no indication of the eventual result after a full hearing.
2. The court authorised the applicant to inform the Crown Court that the delay arose because this court had directed that the case await the Supreme Court judgments in Waya. The court stated that the delay was not the Crown’s fault.
3. A representation order was made for the defendants for one junior counsel, who could act for both defendants because the point was the same.
4. The substantive matter was to be listed in the usual way, with an estimate of one and a half hours.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave was granted and directions were made for a future full hearing.
• Crown Court: An application for an extension of time was stated to be pending. No lower judgment is identified.