Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Bristol & Anor.

Where judicial review proceedings may affect a person’s liberty, the court must allow the affected parties a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and to obtain proper representation. Urgency and public importance do not justify determining the substantive claims on a severely truncated timetable that prevents effective participation. Where necessary, the court may adjourn the substantive hearing and convert it into a directions hearing until adequate representation and preparation are secured. Administrative failures in processing urgent legal-aid applications may justify specific directions and explanations to protect the fairness and effectiveness of the proceedings.

The Director of Public Prosecutions brought two urgent judicial review claims challenging decisions in separate criminal proceedings to refuse extensions of custody time limits. The claims raised issues concerning the effect of action by members of the Criminal Bar Association on applications to extend custody time limits and whether custody time limits could be extended after expiry following the quashing of an earlier refusal.

The claims were listed for a rolled-up hearing before the Divisional Court. Delays in processing the interested parties’ applications for civil legal aid meant that they remained unrepresented shortly before the hearing. The court therefore considered the procedural consequences of proceeding without effective representation and gave directions instead of determining the substantive claims.

1. Fair hearing. Although the claims raised issues of immediate and significant public importance, the court could not fairly determine them on the timetable sought where interested parties whose liberty was potentially affected had not been given a reasonable opportunity to respond or to obtain public funding for proper representation.
2. Adjournment and directions. The substantive rolled-up hearing was adjourned and converted into a directions hearing. This was necessary because the unresolved legal-aid applications placed the fairness and effectiveness of the hearing at risk.
3. Legal-aid administration. The court required an explanation from the Director of Legal Aid Casework for the delay and directed attendance by counsel. The court recorded the Legal Aid Agency’s explanation of the errors and the proposed revised arrangements for urgent applications connected with custody time-limit judicial review claims.
4. Further listing. The court directed that the earliest date for the substantive rolled-up hearing was 26 September 2022. With the parties’ consent, the Secretary of State for Justice was removed as an interested party, and an Advocate to the Court was to be appointed.

This was a directions hearing in two judicial review claims. The substantive claims had not been determined. Earlier orders had recognised the importance and urgency of the issues, but the rolled-up hearing was adjourned because the interested parties lacked effective legal representation.