Andrew Osarinmwian, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court
[2024] EWHC 76 (Admin)
Onasis Mensah, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Manchester
10 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2372 (Admin)
High Court
A man was kept in jail longer than usual while waiting for trial because the court was too busy to hear his case right away. He tried to get the extra jail time overturned, but the judge said that it was okay given the court's scheduling problems.
Key Facts
- •Onasis Mensah was remanded in custody pending trial on two charges of supplying Class A drugs.
- •The Crown Court extended his custody time limit (CTL) from July 18th to August 16th, 2023.
- •Mensah applied for judicial review of the CTL extension, but was unrepresented due to lack of legal aid.
- •The extension was granted due to a lack of court resources and scheduling conflicts in Manchester Crown Court.
- •The court considered several higher priority cases and explored alternative venues before granting the extension.
Legal Principles
The court may extend a CTL if satisfied the need is due to illness, absence, postponement, or some other good and sufficient cause, and the prosecution acted with due diligence.
Section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
Neither the seriousness of the offence nor the shortness of the extension sought can be good and sufficient cause for an extension. Overriding purposes of the CTL regime include short custody periods, diligent prosecution preparation, and court control over extensions.
R v Manchester Crown Court Ex Parte McDonald [1999] 1 WLR 841
Judicial unavailability or intense court pressures may, in special cases, amount to good and sufficient cause for a CTL extension.
R (Gibson) v Crown Court at Winchester [2004] EWHC 361 (Admin)
Factors to consider in CTL extension decisions include delay duration, previous extensions, defendant's age and antecedents, likely sentence, reasons for bail refusal, and defendant's vulnerabilities.
R (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Crown Court at Woolwich [2020] EWHC 3243 (Admin)
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was dismissed.
The Judge considered all relevant factors, including the lack of court resources, the priority of other cases, the claimant's age and prior convictions, and the likelihood of a custodial sentence. The court found no reviewable error of law.
Similar Cases
Michael Sierotko & Anor, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Manchester Crown Square
[2023] EWHC 1187 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lewes Crown Court
[2024] EWHC 1885 (Admin)
Hesamedin Navabi, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Durham
[2023] EWHC 943 (Admin)
R v Kirk Daniels
[2024] EWCA Crim 1008