R Crown Prosecution Service v Croydon Crown Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Laws,Mr Justice William Davis |
| Judgment Date | 28 April 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 1739 (Admin) |
| Date | 28 April 2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4532/2014 |
[2015] EWHC 1739 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Laws
Mr Justice William Davis
CO/4532/2014
Mr A Gofur (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Ms S Riggs (instructed by Irwin Mitchell) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
The Crown Prosecution Service seek judicial review with permission granted by Sir Stephen Silber on 23 March 2015 to challenge the refusal by His Honour Judge Waller at the Croydon Crown Court on 27 May 2014 to make a confiscation order against the Interested Party, Angela Ludlow. They also seek to challenge the judge's refusal on 2 September 2014 to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. The confiscation proceedings in the case were governed by the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The Interested Party was convicted of two counts of benefit fraud on 31 October 2013. She was sentenced on 28 November 2013. A confiscation hearing was listed for mention on 17 April 2014 which was, however, Maundy Thursday and thus not a sitting day.
On 28 November 2013, Judge Waller also gave other directions. One was that the prosecutor's statement be served by 13 February 2014. The statutory 6 month time limit, 1988 Act section 72A(3), for completion of the confiscation proceedings was due to expire on 30 April 2014, 6 months from the date of conviction.
Owing to an administrative error, the prosecutor's statement was served late, being received by the Interested Party's solicitors on 24 March 2014. The next day, the solicitors wrote to the court. They sought a revised timetable which culminated a mention in court on 27 May 2014. That proposed timetable would of course take the confiscation proceedings past the 6 month time limit, though no one seems to have that fact in mind or reverted to it at that stage. It appears that His Honour Judge Waller the next day, 26 March 2014, dealt with the solicitor's letter of 25 March administratively and approved the proposed revised timetable.
At length, the matter came before Judge Waller on 27 May 2014. The 6 month time limit of had of course expired. The case had been mentioned to him informally by prosecuting counsel who happened to be appearing in another case on 16 April 2015.
On 27 May 2014, the judge considered that the issue he had to decide was whether to extend the time for determining the confiscation proceedings retrospectively. It affected the instance of the prosecutor. He cited section 72A(3). He referred to the late service of the prosecutor's statement. He considered there were no exceptional circumstances, as the statute would require, to justify an extension of time.
He said, transcript of the ruling, bundle page 53 at letter D:
"There has been, it seems to me, a double failure by the prosecution. First, they were late in serving their response by 5 weeks and 5 days and then they should have realised that the extension which had been made to the timetable was not the same as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Sharif Sanjari v The Crown Court at Birmingham
...and the more recent decisions in R (Faithful) v Crown Court at Ipswich [2007] EWHC 2763 (Admin) and R (CPS) v Croydon Crown Court [2015] EWHC 1739 (Admin). 8 The issue on jurisdiction was drawn to the attention of the legal representatives of the claimant by the Administrative Court Office.......