Prosecutor's Due Expedition
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300602 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
TheJournal of
Criminal
Law
Adam Smith would no doubt remind us, different conclusions resulted
inevitably because the licensees were arguing from different premises.
Prosecutor's Due Expedition
Rv
GGG,
expJohnson [1999] 2 Cr App R 5I
The applicant for judicial review, having been arrested
and
remanded in
custody, the police sent guns found on his premises
and
some articles of
his clothing to a forensic science laboratory for analysis. The custody
time limit expired the following December,
but
the laboratory informed
the police officer in charge of the case
that
aresult would
not
be
available before the end of January. The police
made
several telephone
calls to try to expedite
the
result,
but
they had eventually to apply for an
extension of the custody time limit. The magistrates refused to grant an
extension. Next day, the laboratory informed
the
police that ascientist
had been appointed to carry
out
the analysis
and
the police therefore
appealed to the Crown Court against the magistrates' refusal to extend
the time limit. That court allowed the appeal, on
the
ground that the
police had shown 'all due diligence'
under
s 22(3) of
the
Prosecution of
Offences Act 1985, for the delay had been caused exclusively by the
failure to act earlier by
the
forensic science laboratory, which was
not
itself the prosecutor or part of the prosecution, so that
the
police could
not
be held to have
any
responsibility for the delay. An application for
the judicial review of the recorder's decision was
then
made, on the
ground that the forensic science laboratory was part of
the
prosecution .
team, for whose dilatoriness the police
and
the
prosecution
must
take
their share of the blame.
Where acustody time limit applies in the case of a person
who
has
been remanded in custody to await trial, s 22(3) of
the
Prosecution of
Offences Act 1985 provides that, before the period of time runs out, an
application may be made to
the
appropriate court for
the
extension of
the time limit. That section authorises the court to extend the limit at
any time before it expires, provided (a)
the
court is satisfied (after
considering the factors set
out
in the subsection) that there is a 'good and
sufficient cause' for doing so,
and
(b) the prosecution has acted with 'all
due expedition'.
The first issue was
whether
the forensic science laboratory was to
be regarded as part of the prosecution or
whether
it was a wholly
independent body, so that its failure to act in time could
not
be attributed
to the prosecution. The second issue was whether,
if
the laboratory was
an independent body,
the
prosecution authorities had, in relying on it,
done all in its power to obtain in time the evidence necessary to allow
the case to come to trial by
the
date of the expiry of
the
statutory custody
time limit.
508
To continue reading
Request your trial