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 and give reasons for decision.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ: ‘If the law ended at that point [simply with the Bail Act] it would manifestly afford inadequate protection to unconvicted defendants, since a person could, if the Bail Act conditions were satisfied, be held in prison awaiting trial indefinitely, and there would be no obligation on the prosecuting authority to bring him to trial as soon as reasonably possible. It was no doubt to rectify that defect that Parliament [introduced the 1985 Act].’ and ‘To satisfy the court that this condition is met the prosecution need not show that every stage of preparation of the case has been accomplished as quickly and efficiently as humanly possible. That would be an impossible standard to meet, particularly when the court which reviews the history of the case enjoys the immeasurable benefit of hindsight. Nor should the history be approached on the unreal assumption that all involved on the prosecution side have been able to give the case in question their undivided attention. What the court must require is such diligence and expedition as would be shown by a competent prosecutor conscious of his duty to bring the case to trial as quickly as reasonably and fairly possible. In considering whether that standard is met, the court will of course have regard to the nature and complexity of the case, the extent of preparation necessary, the conduct (whether co-operative or obstructive) of the defence, the extent to which the prosecutor is dependent on the co-operation of others outside his control and other matters directly and genuinely bearing on the preparation of the case for trial.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ
Citations:
Gazette 27-Jan-1999, Times 19-Nov-1998, [1999] 1 WLR 841
Statutes:
Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87262