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

An extension of a custody time limit requires proof of good and sufficient cause. The unavailability of a judge or courtroom will ordinarily be insufficient in itself. It may contribute to good and sufficient cause in an unusual case involving real complexity or a requirement for a specially authorised judge. The court must scrutinise the evidence rigorously and consider whether the case could conveniently be tried elsewhere. Where a trial is fixed outside the custody time limit without the defendant’s express consent, the court must take the initiative by directing an immediate extension application. The State remains responsible for trying the defendant within the statutory limit or establishing, by detailed evidence, a lawful reason for extending it.

The claimant faced charges of kidnapping and an offence under Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and was held in custody. At a plea and case management hearing, the Luton Crown Court fixed the trial for 30 April 2012, although the custody time limit expired on 5 April. The Crown Prosecution Service later applied under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to extend the limit.

The Crown Court accepted that the prosecution had acted with due diligence and found good and sufficient cause, relying principally on the case’s seriousness, complexity and the unavailability of a court or judge. The claimant sought judicial review. The central issues were the proper approach to unavailability of court resources and the significance of the defence’s failure to object when the trial date was fixed.

1. Application granted. The decision of the Luton Crown Court extending the custody time limit was quashed.
2. Section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 must be applied to the facts of each case. The court cannot prescribe an exhaustive list of circumstances capable of constituting good and sufficient cause. Resource availability may be relevant, but extensions should be granted only in unusual circumstances.
3. The expression routine, used in the guidance in R(Bannister) v The Crown Court at Guildford [2004] EWHC 221, distinguishes the ordinary Crown Court case from a case of real complexity or one requiring a particular judge. In an ordinary case, the mere unavailability of a judge or courtroom will not generally establish good and sufficient cause. Expert evidence, such as cell-site or DNA evidence, does not by itself make a case sufficiently unusual.
4. The prosecution must provide detailed evidence. The court must investigate whether the case could be tried at another convenient court and whether regional listing arrangements or presiding judges could assist. Evidence should be served in advance so that the defendant can examine and, if necessary, challenge it. The limited enquiries made in this case did not satisfy that requirement.
5. There is a joint duty on the prosecution and the court to arrange a trial within the custody time limit, as explained in R (Norman) v Worcester Crown Court [2000] 2 Cr App R 33. If a trial is fixed outside the limit without express consent, the court must direct an immediate application to extend it. The defence was not required to identify the court’s failure or informally cross-examine the listing officer. The State could not rely on that omission as good and sufficient cause.
6. The case was serious but was not one of real complexity requiring a specially authorised judge. There was no evidence that witnesses or experts were unavailable. On the evidence, a trial date within the custody time limit could probably have been found had proper enquiries been made.

The judgment itself records that the claim challenged a decision of the Luton Crown Court dated 3 April 2012 extending the custody time limit. The Administrative Court granted permission and quashed that decision.