Andrew Osarinmwian, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court
[2024] EWHC 76 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lewes Crown Court
22 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1885 (Admin)
High Court
A case was moved from a Crown Court to a Magistrates' Court. A question arose about how long the accused could be kept in jail. The court decided the jail time limit was 70 days in the Magistrates' Court, but time spent in jail *before* the case was moved didn't count towards that 70 days.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review of His Honour Judge Mooney's decision on custody time limits (CTL) following a case remission from Crown Court to Magistrates' Court under section 46ZA of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
- •The judge ruled that the 70-day Magistrates' Court CTL applied, including time served in Crown Court custody before remission.
- •The DPP argued the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the CTL after remission and that Crown Court custody time shouldn't count towards the Magistrates' Court limit.
- •Mr. Reilly, the interested party, did not participate in the judicial review.
- •The case involved an either-way offence (breaching Sexual Offences Act 2003 notification requirements).
Legal Principles
Custody time limits are governed by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987.
Sections 22 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the 1987 Regulations
Challenges to a court's jurisdiction must be clear and raised early.
General legal principle
Statutes should be interpreted to achieve their intended purpose.
General legal principle of statutory interpretation
The same word in a statutory provision should be given the same meaning unless there's a good reason otherwise.
Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Construction, 8th Edition at 21.2
Outcomes
The claim was allowed, and the judge's decision was quashed.
The judge's approach to calculating the CTL was wrong in law. The 70-day Magistrates' Court CTL applies, but time spent in Crown Court custody before remission under section 46ZA does not count towards it. Regulation 4(2) applies, and Regulation 5(6B) applies only to time awaiting trial on indictment in the Crown Court.
The court declined to rule on the Crown Court's jurisdiction to determine the CTL after remission.
The jurisdictional issue was not clearly raised before the judge and the DPP succeeded on the merits of the CTL calculation. Addressing the jurisdictional question would have been complex, and inviting the judge to act under section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 would have been appropriate if raised earlier.
Similar Cases
Onasis Mensah, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Manchester
[2023] EWHC 2372 (Admin)
Darykie Ramos Molina, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook
[2024] EWHC 816 (Admin)
R v Deon Suleman
[2024] EWCA Crim 1230
Hesamedin Navabi, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Durham
[2023] EWHC 943 (Admin)