The Queen (Lee Colin Marten) v Crown Court at Lincoln

In an application to extend a custody time limit, the prosecution must establish both a good and a sufficient cause, and must show that it has acted with due diligence and expedition. A shortage of court or judicial capacity may constitute good cause, but it does not automatically constitute sufficient cause. The court must scrutinise the individual case, the defendant’s circumstances, alternative listing arrangements and the reasons for the lack of capacity. The prosecution must present adequate information in open court so that both parties can make informed submissions. Although failure to follow every procedural recommendation is not necessarily fatal, the court must demonstrate rigorous scrutiny and give adequate reasons. A six-month extension in a routine case was quashed because the evidence and reasoning did not establish that the statutory requirements had been met.

The claimant was awaiting trial in the Crown Court on four offences and had been remanded in custody. His custody time limit expired on 21 March 2022. The trial, originally listed for 14 March, could not proceed because of court availability and was relisted for 12 September 2022.

On 15 March 2022, the Crown Court at Lincoln extended the custody time limit to 16 September 2022. The judge stated that the prosecution had acted with due diligence and expedition, that enquiries had disclosed no earlier available court, and that the statutory test was satisfied. The claimant sought judicial review, alleging inadequate scrutiny, insufficient reasons and an excessive extension.

The central issue was whether the Crown Court had lawfully established a good and sufficient cause for the extension in a routine custody case affected by wider Crown Court backlog and resource pressures.

1. Application granted. The decision extending the claimant’s custody time limit was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Crown Court at Lincoln for a fresh decision and for determination of appropriate bail conditions, pursuant to CPR 54.19(2)(a).
2. Under section 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, an extension requires both a good and sufficient cause and proof that the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition. The two requirements are distinct. A lack of courtrooms, judges or other judicial resources may be a good cause, but it may not be sufficient if it results from systemic failures or circumstances specific to the case or defendant.
3. The principles stated in Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Crown Court at Woolwich; Regina (Lucina) v Central Criminal Court [2021] 1 WLR 938 continue to apply after the pandemic restrictions. The court must consider the individual facts, investigate whether the trial can be accommodated elsewhere, consider whether other cases can be moved, and assess matters including the likely delay, previous extensions, the defendant’s antecedents, likely sentence, reasons for refusing bail and any vulnerabilities. Extensions should generally be comparatively short, although the three-month indication is not an inflexible rule.
4. The recommendations in R (McAuley) v Crown Court at Coventry (Practice Note) [2012] 1 WLR 2766 do not create an automatic procedural invalidity. Information may be gathered through the court centre and obtained from listing officers. However, the judge must disclose sufficient detail in open court, recognise that the application is made by the prosecution, and ensure that counsel can make informed submissions. The transcript and judgment must demonstrate rigorous scrutiny.
5. Here, the material did not explain why a Recorder was unavailable, whether the problem was property or judicial resource, whether all proximate court centres had been approached, whether non-custody cases could be moved, or whether the shortage reflected systemic failure. The sparse reasons and unspecified enquiries did not establish a proper basis for finding a good and sufficient cause. The continuing effects of the pandemic did not reduce the required level of investigation.

This was an application for judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision dated 15 March 2022.

• High Court, Divisional Court: granted permission, quashed the custody-time-limit extension and remitted the matter to the Crown Court at Lincoln.