R v Norwich Crown Court, ex parte Cox
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 1992 |
| Date | 03 November 1992 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Divisional Court
Criminal procedure - custody extension - "good cause" not for judicial definition
The words "good and sufficient cause" in section 22(3)(a) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 were neither constrained nor defined in the Act and the phrase was not suitable for judicial definition.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Mann and Mr Justice Leonard) so held on October 15 dismissing the application of Norris McArthur Cox for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of Judge Binns at Norwich Crown Court on September 28 granting the prosecution's application to extend the applicant's custody time limit in the crown court.
LORD JUSTICE MANN said that neither the seriousness of the offence nor the shortness of the time sought for the extension could fall within the phrase: see R v Southampton Crown Court, Ex parte RoddieTLR (The Times February 11, 1991); R v Governor of Winchester Prison, Ex parte RoddieUNK((1991) 93 Cr App R 190, 193).
There was no reason why the lack of a court or non-availability of a judge to hear the trial were not capable of coming within the phrase.
The facts of each particular case were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Abu-Wardeh
-
The King on the application of Director of Public Prosecutions v Crown Court at Bristol
...and sufficient” did not limit in any way the categories of cause that could qualify. However, in R v Norwich Crown Court ex p. Cox (1992) 97 Cr App R 145, Mann LJ endorsed the view that neither the seriousness of the offence nor the shortness of the extension sought could qualify as suffici......