|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Thomas v Central Criminal Court  EWHC 2138 (Admin) (07 July 2006)
Cite as:  1 WLR 3278,  EWHC 2138 (Admin)
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report:  1 WLR 3278] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE WALKER
|CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT||(DEFENDANT)|
|CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT||(DEFENDANT)|
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 MICHAEL CONNING appeared on behalf of the Claimant Stubbs
MR MARK WILLIAMS appeared on behalf of the Interested Party Webster
MISS S WHITEHOUSE appeared on behalf of the Interested Party the Crown Prosecution Service
Crown Copyright ©
History of events
10 October - Shooting incident. Stubbs' telephone
called victim: police in possession of number
16 October - Thomas arrested with telephone DRW/1
24 October - Thomas' telephone DRW/1 submitted to OTSU
26 October - Cell site raw data requested for Stubbs' telephone from TIU.
3 November - Stubbs arrested
Billing subscriber and telephone data for Stubbs'
telephone received from TIU
8 November - Stubbs' telephone submitted to OTSU for downloads
OTSU reminded that the Thomas report is required
25 November - Request to TIU for subscriber and number details re. Thomas
31 January TIU send subscriber and number details re. Thomas.
10 February Cell site analysis requested from TIU re. Thomas
16 February TIU decline application re. Thomas (technical defect on form)
21 March Role of officer in case is taken over by DSM Sweeney
24 March Statement request form sent to TIU by OIC requesting billing and subscriber data for Stubbs' & Thomas' telephones to be exhibited
Cell site & call data requested from TIU re. Thomas. TIU ref 29382
Raw cell site data for Stubbs' telephone examined by OIC
4 April Billing data received for Thomas' telephone from TIU
24 April Report submitted to Commander Sawyer for authorisation to obtain refined cell site analysis for both telephones
28 April Raw data and statements producing billing for both telephones served on defence solicitors
2 May Meeting at FTS. FTS agree deadline of 31 May to submit refined report for both telephones
25 May FTS inform police that the data received from 3G telephone company (re. Stubbs' telephone) is wrong
9 June FTS report served.
Submissions in this court
"The issue as to intensity of review
38 The third issue to which I should refer is that which deals with intensity of review. Mr Perry drew attention to the fact that in his submissions he had not relied on the Wednesbury principle. In my judgment it was correct that he should adopt that approach. This case involves the human rights of the claimants. In those circumstances it is only right that the court which originally considers the question of granting an extension should look at the matter with particular care, as the authorities indicate. Equally, when the matter comes before us we must scrutinise it rigorously, but at the same time recognising that the decision is for the judge in the court below to make. Unless we come to the conclusion that he has wrongly exercised his discretion we will not interfere."
At paragraphs 47 to 48 Lord Justice Rose said:
"47 Furthermore, in cases where custody time limits are in question, judicial review may disrupt the trial process and lead to satellite litigation, contributing to delay, which is the very feature of criminal litigation which the custody time limits are intended to help minimise.
48 In R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p Kebilene  2 AC 326, 371 Lord Steyn said:
'The effect of the judgment of the Divisional Court was to open the door too widely to delay in the conduct of criminal proceedings. Such satellite litigation should rarely be permitted in our criminal justice system.'
It is therefore desirable, while recognising the importance of review by this court in exceptional cases, to assert the primacy of the Crown Court judge's role in exercising discretion in relation to custody time limits: see per Lord Bingham CJ in R v Manchester Crown Court, Ex p McDonald  1 WLR 841, 850H, already cited at para 17, subject to the need, as Lord Woolf CJ has said, for rigorous scrutiny by the Crown Court judge before custody time limits are extended."
"(3) 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 -
(i) the illness or absence of the accused, a necessary witness, a judge or a magistrate;
(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."
Paragraph (a) refers to "the extension". In context, where what is sought is a further extension the words "the extension" plainly refer to that further extension. That was accepted by Mr Menon and it plainly makes good sense.