The judge was wrong to insist on the defendant entering a ‘holding plea’ at an arraignment where this was intended only to circumvent the custody time limits.
Glidewell LJ set out the applicable legislation and summarised its effect: ‘Put shortly, the effect of those provisions is that, if a custody time limit, either the original 112 days or any period extended as a result of an order of the court, expires before arraignment in the Crown Court, then the relevant defendant is automatically entitled to bail. The court’s only powers thereafter are to impose conditions on the grant of that bail. The power of the Crown to apply to the Crown Court to extend the time limit can only be exercised by that court if it is satisfied of the two requirements in section 22(3) of the 1985 Act, good and sufficient cause and that the prosecution has acted with all due expedition.’
Judges:
Glidewell LJ
Citations:
Gazette 08-Feb-1995, Times 19-Dec-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 831, [1995] 3 All ER 513
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Olutu v Home Office CA 29-Nov-1996
The claimant said that she had been detained in excess of the period allowed under the 1987 Regulations, and that that detention was unlawful. She now appealed against the striking out of her claim.
Held: Her action failed. The availablility . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88550