Miah, R (on the application of) v Snaresbrook Crown Court

Routine listing pressure at a Crown Court does not constitute good and sufficient cause for extending custody time limits. Such an extension requires exceptional circumstances relating to the case or the listing difficulties. A decision-maker must address that question directly. Treating listing difficulties as automatically sufficient is an error of law. Where no exceptional circumstance exists, the extension should be quashed.

The claimant sought judicial review of a recorder’s decision extending his custody time limit from 22 September 2006 to 26 January 2007. The claimant faced an indictment alleging kidnapping, false imprisonment and actual bodily harm, with trial listed for 15 January 2007.

The only asserted cause for the extension was the Crown Court’s inability to list the case earlier. The central issue was whether those listing difficulties were exceptional and therefore capable of amounting to good and sufficient cause.

1. Judicial review granted and decision quashed. The recorder’s decision to extend the custody time limit was unlawful because it proceeded on the assumption that listing difficulties were themselves sufficient cause.
2. Routine difficulties caused by the ordinary pressure of work on a Crown Court list do not amount to good and sufficient cause. Otherwise, routine problems could become an excuse for wholesale non-compliance with custody time limits.
3. Exceptional circumstances may justify an extension. The relevant question must therefore be addressed by reference to whether the particular case, or the particular listing difficulties affecting it, is exceptional. General pressure on the court system is insufficient.
4. The evidence disclosed no conceivable exceptional circumstance. The recorder had failed to address whether the listing difficulties were exceptional, and that was an error of law.
5. Having granted permission, the court proceeded to the substantive hearing and quashed the decision. Bail was granted under section 37(1) (ii) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948, subject to residence, non-contact and geographical exclusion conditions agreed by the parties. The claimant was also granted the appropriate order for assessment of publicly funded costs.

The judgment reviewed a decision made by Mr Recorder Dawson at Snaresbrook Crown Court on 20 September 2006. The Administrative Court granted permission, proceeded to the substantive hearing, and quashed that decision.