Tweet
Another great result from Gerry McDonald and Nerida Harford Bell !!! 
R v Pritchard [2012] EWCA Crim 1285
Following an order of the Court of Appeal that P be retried on an allegation of rape, the prosecution did not prefer a fresh indictment within 2 months as directed by the court. The error was not spotted until the date of proposed retrial, some 5 months after expiry of the time limit. A prosecution application to extend the time limit was refused by the court of appeal. Held: The court concluded that the Crown failed to satisfy the requirements for an extension of time for the following reasons;
(1) What happened here involved a failure by the Crown to "grip" the needs of the case and to play its part in ensuring compliance with this court's order and the statutory time limit.
(2) The breakdown within the CPS meant that those concerned failed to register that there was a statutory deadline and thus failed to comply with it. In the circumstances it is impossible to find that the Crown acted with all due expedition.
(3) The fact that, coincidentally, no great delay has been caused is neither here nor there.
R v Pritchard [2012] EWCA Crim 1285
Following an order of the Court of Appeal that P be retried on an allegation of rape, the prosecution did not prefer a fresh indictment within 2 months as directed by the court. The error was not spotted until the date of proposed retrial, some 5 months after expiry of the time limit. A prosecution application to extend the time limit was refused by the court of appeal. Held: The court concluded that the Crown failed to satisfy the requirements for an extension of time for the following reasons;
(1) What happened here involved a failure by the Crown to "grip" the needs of the case and to play its part in ensuring compliance with this court's order and the statutory time limit.
(2) The breakdown within the CPS meant that those concerned failed to register that there was a statutory deadline and thus failed to comply with it. In the circumstances it is impossible to find that the Crown acted with all due expedition.
(3) The fact that, coincidentally, no great delay has been caused is neither here nor there.
Comment