The defendants had been sent direct for trial under the section, being charged with indictable only offences, but the prosecution had failed to serve the necessary evidence and documents within the time limit. No application was made by the prosecution to extend the time limit save by a letter which arrived to late to allow the defendants to apply. The defendants issued a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: Nothing in the Act envisaged charges being dismissed for the prosecution’s failure. The Act even envisaged a voluntary indictment being issued if charges were dismissed. A judge has the power to extend the time for service after the limit has expired and even though no application had been made by the prosecution within that limit.
Judges:
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Gibbs
Citations:
Times 18-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 1295 (Admin
Statutes:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 51
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bentham, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Prison Wandsworth Admn 7-Feb-2006
The defendant sought a writ of habeas corpus, saying that he had been wrongfully committed to the crown court under the 1998 Act. The note referred only to a ‘conspiracy without further specification. The crown court had remitted him to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Prisons
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.174445