Onasis Mensah, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Manchester

An extension of a custody time limit may be granted where the statutory conditions are met, including some good and sufficient cause and prosecutorial diligence. The unavailability of a suitable courtroom or judge may constitute good and sufficient cause in a special case, but it cannot be treated as automatically sufficient. The decision is fact-sensitive and requires consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the anticipated delay, previous extensions, the defendant’s circumstances, likely sentence, reasons for refusing bail and any vulnerabilities. On judicial review, the court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction and does not retake the discretionary decision unless a public law error is shown.

The claimant, who was remanded in custody pending trial on two drug-supply charges, challenged the Crown Court’s decision to extend his custody time limit from 18 July to 16 August 2023. The extension was granted because competing priority trials meant that his trial could not start as listed, although efforts had been made to find alternative court accommodation.

The claimant argued that lack of court capacity alone could not amount to good and sufficient cause under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The central issue was whether the Crown Court had lawfully exercised its statutory discretion.

1. Claim dismissed. The Crown Court judge was entitled to conclude that there was good and sufficient cause for extending the custody time limit.
2. Section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 requires the appropriate court to be satisfied both that the need for the extension is due to one of the specified causes, including some other good and sufficient cause, and that the prosecution has acted with all due diligence and expedition. The latter issue was not pursued before this court.
3. The question whether there is good and sufficient cause is fact-sensitive. The authorities recognise that the unavailability of a suitable judge or courtroom may qualify in special cases and on appropriate facts. Limited resources and unusually intense pressure on a court are relevant, but the parties and court must strive to overcome resulting difficulties.
4. The Crown Court judge did not rely solely on the absence of immediate trial capacity. He considered the priority, complexity and age of other trials, attempts to secure accommodation elsewhere, the short period before the relisted trial, the absence of any previous extension, the claimant’s age and convictions, the likely custodial sentence and the absence of identified vulnerabilities. He was entitled to weigh those matters together.
5. The judge’s decision fell within the statutory discretion. Judicial review was confined to identifying a public law or reviewable error and did not permit the Divisional Court to substitute its own assessment. No such error was established.

The court added that, even in urgent liberty cases, proper input from the other parties at the permission stage is ordinarily expected.

• Crown Court at Manchester: On 18 July 2023, HHJ Corbett-Jones extended the custody time limit from 18 July to 16 August 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The court upheld the lawfulness of the extension.