Regina v Leeds Crown Court, Ex parte Bagoutie: 31 May 1999

Lord Bingham: ‘The court made plain in Ex p McDonald, as indeed is plain on the face of the statute, that when seeking an extension or a further extension of the custody time limit the Crown must show that there is good and sufficient [reason] for making the extension and that it has acted with all due expedition. What, however, was not made plain in Ex p McDonald (because the question did not arise) is that these two provisions are in my judgment linked. . . . It is in the ordinary way the business of the prosecution to be ready. If therefore the Crown is seeking an extension of the time limit it must show that the need for the extension does not arise from lack of due expedition or due diligence on its part. It seems clear to me, however, that the requirement of due expedition or due diligence or both is not a disciplinary provision. It is not there to punish prosecutors for administrative lapses; it is there to protect defendants by ensuring that they are kept in prison awaiting trial no longer than is justifiable. That is why due expedition is called for. The court is not in my view obliged to refuse the extension of a custody time limit because the prosecution is shown to have been guilty of avoidable delay where that delay has had no effect whatever on the ability of the prosecution and the defence to be ready for trial on a predetermined trial date.’


Lord Bingham


Unreported, 31 May 1999


Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 22(3)(b)


England and Wales


CitedRegina v Manchester Crown Court, ex parte McDonald; Regina v Leeds Crown Court, ex parte Hunt; Regina v Winchester Crown Court, ex parte Forbes, ex parte Wilson and Mason CACD 19-Nov-1998
When considering applications to extend the custody time limits, courts should have in view the purpose of the rules. It would be dangerous to give a list of good reasons for an extension. The court must itself consider the fulfilment of the section . .

Cited by:

CitedO v Crown Court at Harrow HL 26-Jul-2006
The claimant said that his continued detention after the custody time limits had expired was an infringement of his human rights. He faced continued detention having been refused bail because of his arrest on a grave charge, having a previous . .
CitedRegina (Gibson and Another) v Winchester Crown Court QBD 24-Feb-2004
The defendant challenged extension of the custody time limit, saying that the prosecuting authorities had not acted with due diligence to take the case forward.
Held: Though the prosecutor had not acted as required, in this case the actual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.243976