Director of Public Prosecutions, R. (On the Applications of) v Crown Court At Woolwich

Director of Public Prosecutions, R. (On the Applications of) v Crown Court At Woolwich

A shortage of suitable courtrooms caused by the Covid-19 pandemic constitutes a good and sufficient cause for extension of custody time limits under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, provided the prosecution has acted with due diligence and expedition. However, systemic financial constraints or failures to act may not justify extension. The judge in Young-Williams erred in finding there was no good and sufficient cause, relying on matters not in evidence and misapplying the law. The judge in Lucima correctly applied the principles and his decision was lawful.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant: Crown Court at Woolwich; Interested Party: Tesfa Young-Williams; Interested Party: HM Courts and Tribunals Service; Interested Party: The Lord Chancellor; Claimant: Jayano Lucima; Defendant: The Central Criminal Court; Interested Party: The Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Young-Williams: Permission granted, judicial review granted, declaration made. Lucima: Permission for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Custody Time Limits, Covid 19 Pandemic, Extension of Custody Time Limits, Judicial Discretion, Bail, Court Resources
Criminal Law Public Law Judicial Review Custody Time Limits Covid 19 Pandemic Extension of Custody Time Limits Judicial Discretion Bail +1 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Crown Court at Woolwich

Defendant

Tesfa Young-Williams

Interested Party

HM Courts and Tribunals Service

Interested Party

The Lord Chancellor

Interested Party

Jayano Lucima

Claimant

The Central Criminal Court

Defendant

The Crown Prosecution Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Covid-19 pandemic and resulting lack of available courtrooms constitutes a good and sufficient cause for extension of custody time limits under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution acted with due diligence and expedition in seeking extensions of custody time limits.
  3. 3 Whether the decisions of the Crown Court judges in refusing or granting extensions were lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

A shortage of suitable courtrooms caused by the Covid-19 pandemic constitutes a good and sufficient cause for extension of custody time limits under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, provided the prosecution has acted with due diligence and expedition. However, systemic financial constraints or failures to act may not justify extension. The judge in Young-Williams erred in finding there was no good and sufficient cause, relying on matters not in evidence and misapplying the law. The judge in Lucima correctly applied the principles and his decision was lawful.

Court Disposition

Young-Williams: Permission granted, judicial review granted, declaration made. Lucima: Permission for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Declaration that the decision of Judge Raynor that the prosecution had not shown that the need for an extension to the CTL was due to a good and sufficient cause was not open to him.
  • Permission to apply for judicial review refused in the case of Jayano Lucima.