(1) On an application on oath made by a constable and supported by an information a magistrates' court may extend a warrant of further detention issued under section 43 above if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention of the person to whom the application relates is justified.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the period for which a warrant of further detention may be extended shall be such period as the court thinks fit, having regard to the evidence before it.
(3) The period shall not—
<(a) be longer than 36 hours; or<
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Proprietary estoppelThis Practice Note considers proprietary estoppel from a generic standpoint.For industry specific guidance on proprietary estoppel, see Practice Notes:•Estoppel and property law•Mortgages by estoppelProprietary estoppel—what is it?Unlike the other forms of estoppel (see Practice
Costs and the ‘without prejudice’ ruleCosts determination and the ‘without prejudice’ ruleAn issue for practitioners is whether correspondence marked ‘without prejudice’ can be used against a party when the court comes to determine the issue of costs. The Court of Appeal in Walker v Wilsher (1889)
Section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 allows a claimant to claim damages for non-fraudulent misrepresentation, unless the representor can prove they had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true. If the representor had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be
Private nuisancePrivate nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. Interference must be unreasonable, and may be caused, eg by water, smoke, smell, fumes, gas, noise, heat or vibrations. Where the defendant has not
0330 161 1234