Director of Public Prosecutions v Lewes Crown Court

Custody following remission of an either-way case from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ court remains subject to a statutory custody time limit. The applicable limit is the magistrates’ court limit under regulation 4(2) of the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987, namely 70 days. Time spent in Crown Court custody before remission is not aggregated with time spent in magistrates’ court custody for that purpose. Regulation 5(6B) applies to custody while awaiting trial on indictment in the Crown Court. The court should construe the statutory scheme so that custody awaiting trial is subject to a custody time limit, rather than leave the post-remission period unregulated.

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought judicial review of a decision made by His Honour Judge Mooney on 14 December 2023, concerning the custody time limit applicable after the Crown Court remitted an either-way case to the magistrates’ court under section 46 ZA of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

The Crown Court judge held that the magistrates’ court limit was 70 days and that time spent in Crown Court custody before remission counted towards it. The central issues were whether the Crown Court judge had jurisdiction to determine the question and whether pre-remission Crown Court custody counted in calculating expiry of the magistrates’ court limit.

1. Jurisdiction. The court declined to determine whether the Crown Court judge had jurisdiction to decide the custody time-limit issue while hearing a bail appeal after remission. The issue was not properly raised before him at an early stage. The court proceeded on the assumption that he had jurisdiction.
2. Applicable limit. The custody time limit in the magistrates’ court was 70 days under regulation 4(2) of the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987. The shorter 56-day limit in regulation 4(3) applied only where the magistrates’ court had decided to proceed to summary trial under sections 19 to 24 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. No such decision had been made.
3. No unregulated period. The absence of express provision dealing with remission under section 46 ZA did not mean that the subsequent period in custody was subject to no limit. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the Regulations were to be construed, so far as possible, to ensure that time spent in custody awaiting trial was subject to a custody time limit.
4. Calculation after remission. Regulation 4(2) aggregated time spent in the custody of the magistrates’ court between first appearance and the start of summary trial. It did not require or permit Crown Court custody before remission to count towards the 70 days. Regulation 5(6B) governed custody while awaiting trial on indictment in the Crown Court. The word “trial” had the same meaning on both occasions in that regulation and referred to trial on indictment, not summary trial.
5. The judge’s decision that the custody time limit had expired was therefore wrong in law. The claim was allowed and that decision was quashed. No further order was required because the criminal proceedings had concluded.

Divisional Court, High Court (King’s Bench Division): On judicial review, the court quashed the Crown Court judge’s decision that the custody time limit had expired. The jurisdiction issue was left undecided.