The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the custody time limits in his matter had expired before his trial began. An application to extend the limits had to be made before the limit, and had to show proper conduct of the case. For serious fraud cases, such as this, the trial was deemed to have begun at the time of the preparatory hearing. That preparatory hearing had been conducted informally, and in the absence of this defendant. Could a preparatory hearing take place for some defendants, but not others, and was it still a preparatory hearing, if it was only in name?
Held: The regulations did not envisage preparatory hearings against only one of the defendants on an indictment. It was for the judge to decide if a preparatory hearing was warranted. If so, there was to be one preparatory hearing, which might be adjourned on more than one occasion. Nevertheless the hearing in issue was not a preparatory hearing, and the custody time limits had been spent.
It was not acceptable that the hearing at which so little was achieved should have the result of depriving the respondent of his liberty for the many months that were going to elapse before his trial was heard. After concluding that it was a fiction, and in his view an impermissible fiction, to say that the preparatory hearing began on that date, he made these observations: ‘It might be said that the applicant is exploiting a technical argument when it is clear that those involved in the proceedings regarded the preparatory hearing as begun against him and the custody time limit protected. And it might well be that in this case the prosecution could have justified an application to extend the time limit: indeed, although I have not heard argument on the point, there is every indication that, if the Crown had sought an extension of the custody time limits the defendants would have had difficulty in resisting it. However the fact remains that, although Mrs Radford fired a warning shot on 5 October 2001 when the prosecution could still have applied for an extension of the limit, no application was made. The custody time limits rules are an important safeguard for accused persons and demand that prosecutors and the court consider with care whether prolonged detention before trial is properly justified. This is witnessed by the narrow view the courts have taken of what constitutes ‘good and sufficient cause’ to extend custody time limits. It is not an answer to an accused entitled to his liberty after the limit has expired that his argument is a technical one.’
Judges:
Mr Justice Andrew Smith
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 109 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22, Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 5(6B)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Southwark Crown Court, Ex parte Customs and Excise Commissioners QBD 1993
The court found that there was one preparatory hearing in existence, and that that had been conducted before Judge Anwyl-Davies QC. But the trial was listed for hearing before Judge Mota Singh QC, simply because of a direction by the presiding judge . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – In re Kanaris (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) HL 30-Jan-2003
The defendant faced charges with others on the same indictment. The judge called a preparatory hearing under the 1996 Act, against the others, but held a separate hearing for the defendant, at which he held a similar preparatory hearing for him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168022
