The magistrates’ court had erred in ruling that articles concerning human rights abuse in Slovakia were not admissible but there was nothing in that material to show that the applicant should not be extradited for reasons in s.6(1)(d) Extradition Act 1989.

[2003] EWHC 2758 (Admin)

Balham Youth Court had erred in granting a second adjournment in the prosecution of the claimant for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in circumstances where the only two prosecution witnesses had not given credible reasons for their failure to attend.

[2003] EWHC 2584 (QB)

A custody time limit was extended for good and sufficient cause where the trial could not proceed on the listed date because of the defence’s failure to notify the court of an increase in the time estimate.

[2003] EWHC 2381 (Admin)

The judge presiding over confiscation proceedings did not err in ruling that the sentencing judge had taken and made manifest a decision to postpone the confiscation proceedings until after sentence was passed.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2246

The justices should not have declined to adjourn confiscation order enforcement proceedings to allow the prosecution to appear or for information to be obtained in relation to the extent to which steps had been taken to realise assets held outside of the jurisdiction before committing the offender to prison in default of payment.

[2002] EWHC 2909 (QB)

Where the Crown Prosecution Service had acted with due expedition within the meaning of s.8(1B)(b) Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the defendant would be retried following his successful appeal against conviction even though rearraignment had not taken place within the time set by the Court of Appeal.

[2002] EWCA Crim 2284

Although a confiscation order had been made without the statutory time-limit, there were exceptional circumstances which meant that the order was lawfully made for the purposes of s.71 and s.72A Criminal Justice Act 1988.

[2002] EWCA Crim 453

After a confiscation hearing had been adjourned beyond the six-month period after conviction, further adjournments did not require there to be “exceptional circumstances” under s.3 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 because the court could then manage its own process.

[2001] EWCA Crim 1763

In a case where there were unusual circumstances, a district judge who did not take certain factors into account was not entitled to refuse adjournment or a substitution of charges.

[2001] EWHC Admin 492

The prosecution was not precluded from obtaining further evidence and taking further witness statements during the course of a case. In some circumstances it would have failed in its duty if it had not done so.

Although a defendant had pleaded guilty to an offence, the CPS could still be ordered to pay his wasted costs in respect of an aborted hearing where the police had warned a prosecution witness to attend the wrong court.

Section 3 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 was intended to limit delay in the gathering of information for a confiscation order, but not otherwise to limit the court’s inherent powers as to when to hear or adjourn the hearing of an application for a confiscation order.

The Crown’s failure to apply for an extension of time for a confiscation order resulted in the eventual order, made outside the six-month limitation period, to be quashed.