Criminal lawBy Anthony Edwards, TV Edwards, London

Time limitsR v Leeds CC ex parte Wardle [2001] All ER 1 In the above case, the House of Lords, in an extremely restrictive reading of the Human Rights Act, has held that each charge generates its own custody time limit even when the new charge is wholly contained within a greater allegation which had been withdrawn by the Crown.Although the defendant originally faced a murder charge, which was withdrawn at the end of the custody time limit, the new manslaughter charge was held to create a new custody time limit.However, exceptions will apply, when the new charge is merely a re-wording of the old or there has been abuse by the prosecution.

In a slight widening of the definition of that term the court held that not only bad faith and dishonesty would satisfy the test but also where the prosecutor sought to take advantage of a procedural rule for a purpose that could be described as improper or arbitrary, such as bringing a new charge solely for the purpose of avoiding the custody time limit.On bailR v Havering Magistrates Court, ex parte DPP; R v Wirral BIVIC, ex parte McKeown (2001) The Times, 7 February In the above case the Divisional Court considered the correct procedure to follow when a defendant is arrested for breach or potential breach of bail conditions under section 7(5) of the Bail Act 1976.

In doing so it also gave useful guidance on the way that a breach or alleged breach of a bail condition impacts on the court's decision whether bail should, as a result, be removed.

The court held that such a hearing was not affected by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the hearing under section 7(5) did not amount to a criminal trial.

Therefore, the court followed the established decision in R v Liverpool City Justices, ex parte DPP [1992] 3 ALL ER 249 which had held that this was a remand hearing which could not be adjourned.

The Crown remains able to raise objections to bail without calling formal evidence or offering witnesses for cross examination.However, the court also decided two issues which will be of considerable assistance to defendants.

The court held that proper account must be taken of the quality of material which is provided and the defence must have a proper opportunity to respond.

Therefore, if the defence wishes to call rebutting evidence it would not be within the power of the court to refuse to hear it.

Significantly, the court held that the mere fact of an arrest under section 7 was not of itself enough to justify a refusal of bail.

The fact of a breach or potential breach could only be significant when it provided evidence which would have justified a court refusing bail under paragraph 2 of part 1 schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976, namely that the breach of bail gave substantial reason to believe that the defendant would fail to appear, commit further offences or interfere with the course of justice.In a case where a defendant is on conditional bail to a Crown Court, an arrest for breach of bail conditions will often result in an appearance in the magistrates court.

It does not lie in the power of the magistrates merely to commit to the crown court for that court to decide whether there had been a breach.

To comply with the provisions of section 7(5) of the Bail Act the magistrates may only commit in custody if they themselves were of the opinion that the provisions of the sub-section were met (R v Teeside Magistrates Court, ex parte Ellison (2001) The Times, 20 February).