R v Kuran Gill

Under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 8, leave to arraign after the two-month limit requires cumulative satisfaction that the prosecution acted with all due expedition and that good and sufficient cause remains for a retrial. Due expedition concerns securing arraignment, not every aspect of trial preparation. The Crown Court has the primary responsibility for arraignment, although the parties must co-operate and take reasonable steps to correct an apparent failure. The inquiry is a broad assessment of whether the prosecution acted promptly and properly in the circumstances. A failure to make the best submission at a hearing is not necessarily a failure of expedition where the prosecution has otherwise taken reasonable, prompt steps to obtain a listing.

The defendant's conviction for wounding with intent under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 had been quashed on appeal. The earlier Court of Appeal decision ordered a retrial and directed service of a fresh indictment within 28 days and arraignment within two months: [2023] EWCA Crim 259.

The defendant was not arraigned by the deadline. The prosecution had uploaded the fresh indictment, attended a plea and trial preparation hearing, and subsequently sought an urgent listing. It applied for leave to arraign out of time. The defendant opposed that application and sought an acquittal under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The sole contested question was whether the prosecution had acted with all due expedition.

1. The prosecution application was granted. The court gave leave to arraign after expiry of the statutory period. It therefore did not set aside the retrial order or direct an acquittal.
2. Section 8(1B) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 imposes cumulative conditions. The court could grant leave only if satisfied both that the prosecution had acted with all due expedition and that there remained good and sufficient cause for retrial. The latter condition was not disputed.
3. Following R v Pritchard [2012] EWCA Crim 1285, the court held that the principal duty to ensure arraignment within time lies with the Crown Court. Parties must co-operate, but they cannot themselves perform the court's listing and arraignment functions. The due-expedition inquiry concerns arraignment rather than the wider preparation of the retrial. It requires a broad retrospective assessment, rather than a minute examination of every available step.
4. The prosecution's obligations were limited but real. It had to provide a proper indictment, attend when the case was listed, and take reasonable steps if the court failed to arrange an arraignment. The relevant standard was less demanding than the custody-time-limit requirement. The court also drew support from R v Manchester Crown Court ex parte McDonald [1999] Cr App R 409, which required the practical diligence and expedition of a competent prosecutor acting fairly and reasonably.
5. The fresh indictment was in the correct form. Its upload to the wrong digital file was a trivial error which could readily have been corrected at the plea and trial preparation hearing. Prosecuting counsel should have made the statutory deadline clear. That was a failure of submission, however, rather than a failure of expedition. By its email of 6 April, the prosecution had reasonably and promptly asked the court to list the case before the deadline. The subsequent failure was the court's failure to act upon that request.
6. Leave was accordingly granted. Arraignment was required by 26 June 2023, with a direction for an earlier listing for that purpose.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted the prosecution leave under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to arraign the defendant after the time limit.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2023] EWCA Crim 259, allowed the defendant's appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial subject to directions for a fresh indictment and arraignment.