QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE AIKENS
____________________
BRIAN GALLON | (CLAIMANT) | |
-v - | ||
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CROWN COURT | (DEFENDANT) | |
and | ||
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE | (INTERESTED PARTY) |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR T MORAN (instructed by CPS Northumbria) appeared on behalf of the INTERESTED PARTY
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"...I do have regard to the criteria there set out down, that is to oblige the Prosecution to prepare cases with all due diligence, to ensure that periods are as short as reasonably practicable and to invest the Court with the duty to control any extensions, and obviously the court is mindful of that, and it is perfectly true to say that in this case the Crown have not complied with all orders so far set by the Court and have not, in the usual way, sought extensions to those orders. However, the overall delay here is about one month, and the case, as I have described, is a complicated one and I am satisfied that the Crown have exercised all due diligence in the preparation of their case."
"As far as good and sufficient cause to extend the time limits is concerned, I have considered all the relevant dates that were put to the Court on the 31st March last. I have considered the availability of courts, of the trial judge, of all the counsel who are in the case, and I have come to the view that there is good and sufficient cause to extend both part one of the trial to the 19th June and part two to the 12th September. It seems to me that it is in the interests of justice that the same trial judge should hear all three cases and, if it comes to that, sentence all defendants involved in the same conspiracy, and I am also satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that these trials should have been split into three in the way that they have, so that it is a manageable exercise for a jury to try some of the defendants in each trial.
"The 12th September, I am satisfied, is the first available date for part two of this trial [I think the judge meant part three for that date] to take place, and although it does involve some considerable delay, I am satisfied that it is a reasonable extension in all the circumstances to grant, and therefore I do grant all five of the applications."
"The appropriate court may, at any time before the expiry of a time limit imposed by the regulations, extend, or further extend, that limit; but the court shall not do so unless it is satisfied -
(a) that the need for the extension is due to..."
(ii) a postponement which is occasioned by the ordering by the court of separate trials in the case of two or more accused or two or more offences; or
(iii) some other good and sufficient cause; and
(b) that the prosecution has acted with all due diligence and expedition."
I have already referred to regulation 5(6)(b) of the Custody Time Limits Regulations 1987 as amended, which sets at 182 days the custody times limits in respect of cases where the accused is sent to trial under section 51 of the 1988 Act.
"(1) to ensure that the periods for which unconvicted defendants are held in custody awaiting trial are as short as reasonably and practically possible; (2) to oblige the prosecution to prepare cases for trial with all due diligence and expedition; and (3) to invest the court with a power and duty to control any extension of the maximum period under the regulations for which any person may be held in custody awaiting trial."
The Lord Chief Justice described these as "all very important objectives". He emphasised that any judge that made a decision as to the extension of custody time limits must be careful to give full weight to all three of these overriding purposes.