Where the prosecutor intended to apply to extend the custody the time limit, he should not be required to produce full documentation in the same way as for the trial itself. Nevertheless, he should produce enough information, according to the circumstances, to allow the defendant properly to prepare his own submissions for the application. The Human Rights Act must to be taken into account. Article 6 has no direct relevance, but article 5 does. The approach may differ from case to case. The application for an extension could be more informal than the normal trial process. It was therefore unnecessary to comply with formal rules of evidence. The burden lay upon the Crown who had to satisfy the magistrates that the application was proper and to put the defendant into a position to allow him to test the appropriateness of the application.
The Lord Chief Justice said that ECHR jurisprudence could not and should not be applied directly to the procedures in the English jurisdiction: ‘whether access to documents is to be granted, and when it is to be granted, must depend upon the particular domestic procedure which is being brought into play in proceedings before the courts in this jurisdiction’.
As to the custody time limits, Lord Woolf said: ‘it is to be hoped that in the majority of cases it is will be possible for the Crown Prosecution Service to make information available to a defendant, prior to the application being made, which will enable him or her to be satisfied as to the propriety of the application. Insofar as it is necessary for a defendant to test any aspect of the application, then the means must be provided to enable him or her to do that. However, formal disclosure of the sort which is appropriate prior to the trial will not normally be necessary in regard to an application either for bail or for an extension of time limits.’
Judges:
Lord Woolf LCJ
Citations:
Times 08-Feb-2001
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Ara Admn 21-Jun-2001
The Director challenged the decision of the magistrates to stay a prosecution of the defendant as an abuse of process. The defendant had been interviewed without a solicitor. He went away to seek legal advice. The solicitor requested a copy of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Human Rights, Magistrates
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.90499