Kimber, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 643 (21st March, 2001)

Kimber, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 643 (21st March, 2001)

The prosecution acted with reasonable expedition by promptly submitting the indictment and relying on the court's listing; their subsequent failure to check the adjourned date was reasonable in the circumstances, as it was assumed the court was aware of the deadline. Therefore, the statutory test for extending time...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Crim 643
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant/defendant: David Patrick Kimber
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Extend Time for Re Arraignment and Cross Application for Acquittal After Order for Retrial
Outcome
Application to extend time for re-arraignment allowed; cross-application for acquittal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Re Trial After Appeal, Time Limits for Arraignment, Duties of Counsel, Section 8 Criminal Appeals Act 1968
Criminal Law Appellate Procedure Re Trial After Appeal Time Limits for Arraignment Duties of Counsel Section 8 Criminal Appeals Act 1968

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

David Patrick Kimber

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application to Extend Time for Re Arraignment and Cross Application for Acquittal After Order for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution acted with all due expedition in seeking re-arraignment within the statutory time limit under s.8 Criminal Appeals Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the failure to re-arraign within two months should result in acquittal or extension of time
  3. 3 Duties of defence counsel to the court regarding procedural time limits

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution acted with reasonable expedition by promptly submitting the indictment and relying on the court's listing; their subsequent failure to check the adjourned date was reasonable in the circumstances, as it was assumed the court was aware of the deadline. Therefore, the statutory test for extending time was satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time for re-arraignment allowed; cross-application for acquittal dismissed.

Orders

  • Time for re-arraignment extended to Friday 16th March 2001.
  • Re-arraignment to take place as soon as possible.