Raeside, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2012] EWHC 1064 (Admin) (23 April 2012)

Raeside, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service [2012] EWHC 1064 (Admin) (23 April 2012)

The judge misdirected himself by treating the case as non-routine and failing to ensure all necessary enquiries were made to find an earlier trial date within the CTL. The evidence did not establish good and sufficient cause for the extension, and the actions or inactions of the defence at the PCMH did not justify the extension. The decision to extend the CTL was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1064 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Raeside; Defendant: Luton Crown Court; Interested Party: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Rolled Up Application for Judicial Review of Decision to Extend Custody Time Limits
Outcome
Decision to extend Custody Time Limits quashed; permission granted for judicial review.
Legal Topics
Custody Time Limits, Extension of Time Limits, Judicial Discretion, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Judicial Review Custody Time Limits Extension of Time Limits Judicial Discretion Criminal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raeside

Claimant

Luton Crown Court

Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Rolled Up Application for Judicial Review of Decision to Extend Custody Time Limits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown Court's decision to extend Custody Time Limits (CTL) was lawful under s.22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether sufficient enquiries were made to justify the extension of CTL
  3. 3 Whether the actions or inactions of the defence at the Plea and Case Management Hearing (PCMH) provided good and sufficient cause for the extension

Ratio Decidendi

The judge misdirected himself by treating the case as non-routine and failing to ensure all necessary enquiries were made to find an earlier trial date within the CTL. The evidence did not establish good and sufficient cause for the extension, and the actions or inactions of the defence at the PCMH did not justify the extension. The decision to extend the CTL was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Decision to extend Custody Time Limits quashed; permission granted for judicial review.

Orders

  • Permission for judicial review granted
  • Decision of Luton Crown Court to extend Custody Time Limits quashed