Taheri, R (On the Application Of) v Luton Crown Court & Anor

Custody time limits may be extended for good and sufficient cause, including exceptional listing difficulties or administrative error, but the statutory exception must not undermine the protection of liberty and speedy trial. The court must examine the particular circumstances rigorously, identify the true cause of the delay, and ensure that the extension and its length are justified. Where the difficulty resulted from the defence failing to notify the court of a material change in the trial estimate, and the prosecution acted with due diligence and expedition, an extension may properly be granted.

The claimant sought judicial review of a decision by His Honour Judge Burke QC extending his custody time limit to 18 September 2003. He had been committed for trial on charges of harassment and threats to kill and had remained in custody for almost a year.

The trial had been relisted after a change of solicitors prevented the original fixture from proceeding. When the case was listed for 23 July 2003, its estimated length had increased from five to seven days to approximately two weeks. The trial could not be accommodated within the judge’s sitting period, and a further date had to be found. The central issue was whether the circumstances constituted good and sufficient cause under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and whether the prosecution had acted with all due diligence and expedition.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court held that the custody time-limit extension was lawful on the facts ultimately established.
2. Under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, as amended, the court must be satisfied both that the extension is required for good and sufficient cause and that the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition. Good and sufficient cause cannot be exhaustively defined. Each application depends on its particular facts.
3. Unavailability of a suitable judge or courtroom, and administrative error, may in an appropriate case constitute good and sufficient cause. Such grounds require careful scrutiny because readily accepting listing difficulties could defeat the statutory purpose. Where administrative error is relied on, the court must do everything reasonably possible to minimise its effect.
4. The crucial question was why the trial had been listed for a date on which it could not be accommodated. That factual issue should have been investigated before the Crown Court judge reached his decision. The transcript showed that the court had not been told during the 23 April hearing that the trial estimate had increased. The likely cause was the defence’s failure to notify the court, rather than an error by court staff.
5. On the proved facts, the circumstances were exceptional. The listing for 23 July had been proper, the court bore no responsibility for the failure to proceed, and there was no evidence that the prosecution had failed to act with due diligence and expedition. The Crown Court judge was therefore entitled, and effectively required, to find good and sufficient cause for the extension.

The claimant was granted public funding costs assessment, subject to lodging the relevant certificate.