Time Running Out? Extending Custody Time Limits for Periods of Indeterminate Action
Published date | 01 April 2023 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231168490 |
Author | James J Ball |
Date | 01 April 2023 |
Time Running Out? Extending
Custody Time Limits for Periods of
Indeterminate Action
R (On the Application of the Director of Public
Prosecutions) v Crown Court at Bristol & Anor [2022]
EWHC 2415 (Admin); [2023] 1 Cr App R 3
Keywords
Custody time limits (CTLs), extensions, some other good and sufficient cause, chronic and
routine, indeterminate endpoints
Under s 4 Bail Act 1976, those who are charged with a criminal offence, and have pleaded not guilty to
that offence, have the general right to bail pending their trial before a magistrates’court or the Crown
Court. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, and defendants who are not granted bail will be
remanded in custody during this time. In such cases, there is a limit as to how long a defendant can
be remanded in custody until their trial. These are known as custody time limits (CTLs) and are pre-
scribed by the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987. In short, a defend ant’s
trial must commence before the expiration of the CTL.
Extensions to CTLs shall not be granted under s 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act (POA) 1985,
unless the court is satisfied that:
(a) The need for the extension is due to
(i) the illness or absence of the accused, a necessary witness, a judge or a magistrate;
(ii) a postponement which is occasioned by the ordering by the court of separate trials in the
case of two or more defendants or two or more offences; or
(iii) some other good and sufficient cause; and
(b) that the prosecution has acted with all due diligence and expedition. (emphasis added)
The focus of this case note will be on how the courts interpret “some other good and sufficient cause”in s
22(3)(a)(iii), following the Criminal Bar Association’s (CBA) period of action. Whilst an opinion on the
merits of the dispute will not be expressed in this case note, relevant factors of the dispute which were
deemed pertinent to this Court’s judgment will be brought into focus. It is acknowledged that on 16
September 2022, the Divisional Court handed down an earlier judgment relating to this case (R (On
the Application of the Director of Public Prosecutions) v Crown Court at Bristol & Anor [2022]
EWHC 2347 (Admin). This, however, concerned a directions hearing for the case and has little relevant
bearing on the substance of the judicial review claim.
In the spring of 2022, disruption was caused to criminal hearings across England and Wales. Many
members of the CBA, through days of action, initially refused to accept returns from other counsel.
By September 2022, numerous members were not undertaking any defence cases funded by the Legal
Aid Agency indefinitely (save for the consideration of individual circumstances of each case). Many
Case Note
The Journal of Criminal Law
2023, Vol. 87(2) 145–150
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183231168490
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial