Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

Applications to extend custody time limits based on the unavailability of a court or judge require particularly careful scrutiny. The court must be positively satisfied that an extension is necessary and justified. Where listing difficulties are relied upon, inquiries should ordinarily extend beyond the court centre initially expected to hear the trial, unless the circumstances clearly show that no reasonable alternative exists. The statutory purpose of securing a speedy trial for persons in custody must not be undermined by routine acceptance of administrative listing problems.

The claimant sought permission to challenge a decision by His Honour Judge Bing extending custody time limits from 17 September to 5 November. The extension was granted because a lengthy trial had been listed at Snaresbrook for 1 November, and earlier accommodation had not been found there.

Although extensive inquiries had been made about earlier listing at Snaresbrook, no inquiries had been made of other London Crown Courts. The central issue was whether the failure to investigate alternative court centres meant that the court had not properly discharged its duty before extending the custody time limit.

1. Application granted and remitted. The decision extending the custody time limits was set aside in practical effect by remitting the matter to the Crown Court for reconsideration when the case next came before it.
2. The court considering an extension of custody time limits has a positive duty to be satisfied that the extension is needed and justified. The statutory purpose of securing a speedy trial for a person in custody requires rigorous examination of the cause relied upon and of the length of the extension sought.
3. The unavailability of a suitable judge or courtroom may constitute good and sufficient cause, but the authorities require that ground to be approached with caution. Listing difficulties must not be accepted so readily that they defeat the statutory purpose.
4. In the circumstances, the effect of R v Manchester Crown Court ex parte MacDonald [1999] 1 Cr.App.R 409 and R (on the application of) Bannister v Crown Court at Guildford [2004] EWHC 221 Admin was that inquiries should have been made at other London courts. The absence of such inquiries meant that the decision-maker had not sufficiently established that 1 November was the first available date.
5. The matter was remitted to the Crown Court so that the question of extending the custody time limits could be reconsidered. The claimant was to submit the necessary Legal Aid certificate within 10 days.

The judgment concerned a judicial review challenge to His Honour Judge Bing’s decision to extend the custody time limits. The matter was remitted to the Crown Court for reconsideration.