Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2004] EWHC 2252 (Admin) (27 August 2004)

Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2004] EWHC 2252 (Admin) (27 August 2004)

The court held that, in light of the positive duty on the court to be satisfied of the need for an extension and the authorities requiring scepticism towards applications based on lack of available courts or judges, enquiries should have been made at other London courts before extending custody time limits. Failure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2252 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Leonard Armstrong; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; extension decision quashed and remitted.
Legal Topics
Custody Time Limits, Extension of Time, Judicial Duty, Listing Practices
Criminal Law Judicial Review Custody Time Limits Extension of Time Judicial Duty Listing Practices

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Armstrong

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court erred in extending custody time limits without making enquiries at other courts regarding earlier trial dates
  2. 2 Whether there is a positive duty on the court to ensure all reasonable steps are taken before extending custody time limits

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in light of the positive duty on the court to be satisfied of the need for an extension and the authorities requiring scepticism towards applications based on lack of available courts or judges, enquiries should have been made at other London courts before extending custody time limits. Failure to do so rendered the extension improper.

Court Disposition

Application granted; extension decision quashed and remitted.

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Crown Court for reconsideration of the extension of custody time limits at the next mention date.
  • Legal Aid certificate to be submitted within 10 days if required.