Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Bristol & Anor.

Director of Public Prosecutions, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Bristol & Anor.

Adjournments due to the unavailability of legal representation resulting from the CBA’s industrial action may, in principle and for a limited period, constitute a good and sufficient cause for extending custody time limits under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985. However, this is case-specific and will not remain the position once the absence of representation becomes chronic or routine. The challenged decisions refusing to extend custody time limits were unlawful as the judges erred in law by treating the unavailability of representation as not capable of being a sufficient cause. However, as the custody time limits had expired, neither the Crown Court nor the...

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Crown Court at Bristol; Defendant: Crown Court at Manchester (Minshull Street); Interested Party: William Dursley; Interested Party: Benjamin Smedley; Interested Party: Adam Mayall; Advocate to the Court: Attorney General’s Office (Advocate to the Court)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review granted; relief refused.
Legal Topics
Custody Time Limits, Extension of Time Limits, Judicial Discretion, Legal Aid, Right to Bail, Industrial Action, Remand in Custody
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Custody Time Limits Extension of Time Limits Judicial Discretion Legal Aid Right to Bail +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Crown Court at Bristol

Defendant

Crown Court at Manchester (Minshull Street)

Defendant

William Dursley

Interested Party

Benjamin Smedley

Interested Party

Adam Mayall

Interested Party

Attorney General’s Office (Advocate to the Court)

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What principles should be applied by courts when considering applications to extend custody time limits occasioned by adjournments in the context of the present action by the CBA?
  2. 2 Were the challenged decisions lawful?
  3. 3 Does the Crown Court have power to extend custody time limits after their expiry? Does the Administrative Court have power under section 31(5) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to substitute decisions extending the custody time limits in these cases? What relief, if any, should be granted?

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournments due to the unavailability of legal representation resulting from the CBA’s industrial action may, in principle and for a limited period, constitute a good and sufficient cause for extending custody time limits under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985. However, this is case-specific and will not remain the position once the absence of representation becomes chronic or routine. The challenged decisions refusing to extend custody time limits were unlawful as the judges erred in law by treating the unavailability of representation as not capable of being a sufficient cause. However, as the custody time limits had expired, neither the Crown Court nor the...

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review granted; relief refused.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted to the DPP.
  • No quashing of the challenged decisions; relief refused in the exercise of discretion.