Gorgachiev v Southwark Crown Court

Gorgachiev v Southwark Crown Court

The judge was entitled to extend the custody time limit because the case could not be ready for trial before the proposed date, the parties did not object to the trial date, and the prosecution acted with due diligence; these circumstances amounted to 'good and sufficient cause' under section 22(3) of the 1985 Act.

Parties
Claimant: Gorgachiev; Defendant: Southwark Crown Court; Interested Party: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review and Substantive Determination
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Custody Time Limits, Extension of Custody Time Limits, Judicial Discretion, Listing Pressures, Legal Aid
Criminal Law Judicial Review Custody Time Limits Extension of Custody Time Limits Judicial Discretion Listing Pressures Legal Aid

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gorgachiev

Claimant

Southwark Crown Court

Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review and Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to extend the custody time limit (CTL) was lawful under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to carry out the necessary inquiry into exceptional circumstances justifying the extension
  3. 3 Whether lack of objection to the trial date by the defence was a relevant factor

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to extend the custody time limit because the case could not be ready for trial before the proposed date, the parties did not object to the trial date, and the prosecution acted with due diligence; these circumstances amounted to 'good and sufficient cause' under section 22(3) of the 1985 Act.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • No order for costs; costs reserved not to be enforced without leave of the court due to uncertainty over Legal Aid and claimant's compensation