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

Custody time limits must be respected unless there is good and sufficient cause for an extension. In routine cases, shortage of court resources or allocated sitting days will rarely justify extending the limit, particularly where the statutory limits remain unchanged. Court administration must manage budgets, judges and courtrooms under judicial direction so that defendants in custody are tried within time. Any application based on resource constraints requires detailed evidence from senior management and rigorous scrutiny in open court. Listing decisions are a judicial responsibility. Administrative instructions which prioritise budgetary adherence over compliance with statutory custody time limits are unlawful.

The claimant was detained pending trial on criminal charges. The trial was removed from the Coventry Crown Court list shortly before it was due to begin because of judicial and listing difficulties. The Crown Prosecution Service then applied under section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to extend the custody time limit. The Crown Court granted the extension on the basis that the difficulties were unforeseen and unavoidable.

On judicial review, HM Courts and Tribunals Service conceded that the extension should not have been granted. The Divisional Court quashed the decision and addressed the proper approach to routine custody time-limit applications, particularly where the asserted cause is lack of money or court resources.

1. Disposition. The extension of the custody time limit was quashed. The claimant had been unlawfully detained, and the issue of damages was referred for assessment.
2. Section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 permits extension of a custody time limit only where there is good and sufficient cause. The statutory limit is a vital safeguard of liberty. In a routine case, lack of allocated sitting days or other ordinary budgetary pressure will rarely, if ever, justify an extension where Parliament has left the statutory limits unchanged.
3. The court applied the guidance in R (Gibson) v Winchester Crown Court [2004] EWHC 361 (Admin); [2004] 2 Cr App R 14. Resource constraints are relevant, but the court administration and parties must make considerable efforts to avoid delay. The fact that resources are limited cannot be treated as an automatic justification for extending the limit. The approach in R (Bannister) v Crown Court at Guildford [2004] EWHC 221, insofar as it treated resource availability as irrelevant, was not accepted.
4. The Resident Judge has responsibility for listing. A routine case involving a defendant in custody must be referred to the Resident Judge well before the custody time limit becomes critical. Budgetary allocations, alternative venues, judicial availability and cases approaching their limits must be monitored. Listing officers operate under judicial direction and must not allow budget forecasts to displace the statutory requirement.
5. If an extension is nevertheless sought because allocated funds are insufficient, the application must be heard in open court on detailed evidence. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing the need for an extension, as explained in R v Manchester Crown Court ex p McDonald [1999] 1 Cr App R 409. Evidence from senior HMCTS management should be served in advance, and the judge must give a full and detailed judgment.
6. The court distinguished the ordinary position described in R (Katrina Stokes) v Gwent Magistrates’ Court [2001] EWHC Admin 569. Although a judicial body ordinarily supplies information rather than contests judicial review, HMCTS had to provide evidence here because the claim concerned the provision and management of resources. The failure to disclose that the extension could not be defended also justified indemnity costs from 22 February 2012.

The claim was a judicial review of the Coventry Crown Court’s decision to extend the claimant’s custody time limit. The Divisional Court quashed that decision and declared the resulting detention unlawful.