The Statutory Framework

For summary-only offences and either-way offences tried in the Magistrates’ Court, the CTL is 56 days. For indictable and either-way offences proceeding in the Crown Court, the limit is 182 days.

Section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 permits the extension of CTLs only where the court is satisfied that the extension is due to:

i) illness or absence of a party to the case;
ii) a postponement caused by the court ordering separate trials in cases involving two or more offences or defendants; or
iii) some other good and sufficient cause.

The prosecution must also demonstrate that it has acted with all due diligence and expedition. The burden rests upon the prosecution on the balance of probabilities: R (McDonald) v Manchester Crown Court [1998] EWHC 319 (Admin).

What Amounts to “Good and Sufficient Cause”?

The courts have repeatedly emphasised that there is no fixed definition of what constitutes “good and sufficient cause”. In R (McDonald) v Manchester Crown Court, Lord Bingham observed that there is an “almost infinite variety” of circumstances which may amount to good and sufficient cause depending upon the facts of the individual case.

Importantly, a cause may be “good” without necessarily being “sufficient”. Whether the statutory test is met will always depend on the particular circumstances before the court.

The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic

The Covid-19 pandemic generated significant litigation concerning CTLs. At the outset of the pandemic, when jury trials had been suspended by the Lord Chief Justice, the High Court upheld the extension of CTLs on the basis that the pandemic constituted a good and sufficient cause: R (McKenzie) v The Lord Chancellor & Ors [2020] EWHC 1867 (Admin).

However, as jury trials resumed, the courts adopted a more nuanced approach. In DPP v Crown Court at Woolwich [2020] EWHC 3243, the High Court accepted that the pandemic itself was plainly a good reason, but stressed that sufficiency depended on the facts of the individual case and the defendant concerned.

The court also made clear that lack of resources alone could not justify prolonged detention, observing:

“The underlying premise of the CTL regime is that Government is obliged to fund the courts with an expectation that shortage of money itself will not place defendants in jeopardy of spending longer in custody than the periods prescribed by Parliament pending trial.”

Criminal Bar Industrial Action

Further issues arose during the unprecedented industrial action undertaken by the Criminal Bar Association.

In DPP v Crown Court at Bristol & Anor [2022] EWHC 2415 (Admin), the High Court considered whether the Criminal Bar’s no-return policy constituted a good and sufficient cause for extending CTLs. The court noted similarities with the disruption caused during the pandemic, while recognising that the circumstances were not identical.

The court concluded that industrial action could amount to sufficient cause in the short term. However, once the disruption became chronic or systemic, it would cease to provide a sufficient basis for routine extensions.

Court Backlogs and Listing Pressures

The issue of court backlogs remains highly significant. Official figures currently place the open Crown Court caseload at more than 80,000 cases. The Government has acknowledged that the criminal courts are not functioning as intended, prompting ongoing debate concerning reform and funding.

The question of whether listing pressures alone can justify CTL extensions was recently considered in R (Bernard) v The Crown Court Sitting at Snaresbrook [2025] EWHC 3055 (Admin).

In Bernard, the claimant challenged the extension of their CTL on the basis that the delay arose from listing difficulties within the Crown Court. Mrs Justice Eady DBE accepted that listing pressure was capable of constituting a “good” cause. However, the court held that the judge had misdirected themselves in concluding that it was also “sufficient” in the circumstances of the case. The extension was therefore quashed.

In reaching that decision, the court considered the guidance in R (McAuley) v Crown Prosecution Service [2012] EWHC 680 (Admin), where the High Court stated:

“Lack of money provided by Parliament in circumstances where the custody time limits are unchanged, will rarely, if ever, provide any justification for the extension of a CTL.”

The authorities therefore demonstrate a clear judicial reluctance to permit routine extensions arising solely from systemic underfunding or persistent resource pressures.

Conclusion

Whether a cause is “good and sufficient” remains a fact-sensitive exercise. Recent authority demonstrates that while exceptional circumstances may justify temporary extensions to CTLs, routine listing pressures and systemic delays are unlikely, without more, to satisfy the statutory test.

The courts have consistently reinforced the principle that defendants should not bear the consequences of chronic underfunding within the Criminal Justice System. As pressures on the prison estate and Crown Court backlog continue to grow, policymakers may ultimately face a choice between increasing CTLs or investing further resources into the justice system to reduce delay and improve court capacity.