Yilmaz, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

Yilmaz, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

The bill of indictment was not preferred on 8th or 12th February 2007 because it was not presented with the requisite intention for scrutiny and signature under the statutory process; it was only preferred on 16th March 2007 at the PCMH, so the application to extend custody time limits was made in time and the order was lawful.

Parties
Claimant: Recep Yilmaz; Defendant: Central Criminal Court; Interested Party: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Custody Time Limits, Preferment of Indictment, Criminal Procedure, Bail
Criminal Law Judicial Review Custody Time Limits Preferment of Indictment Criminal Procedure Bail

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Recep Yilmaz

Claimant

Central Criminal Court

Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When is a bill of indictment 'preferred' for the purposes of custody time limits under the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987?
  2. 2 Did the actions on 8th or 12th February 2007 amount to the preferment of an indictment?

Ratio Decidendi

The bill of indictment was not preferred on 8th or 12th February 2007 because it was not presented with the requisite intention for scrutiny and signature under the statutory process; it was only preferred on 16th March 2007 at the PCMH, so the application to extend custody time limits was made in time and the order was lawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review dismissed
  • Detailed assessment for public funding permitted if required