Custody Time Limits: 56 days vs 182 days, actual delays

February 26, 2026

The Law & Background

Custody Time Limits (better known as CTLs) are the length of time, under statute, for which someone accused of a crime can be held in custody before they are tried. Trials which take place in the Magistrates Court, be they summary only or either way, have a CTL of 56 days, or 8 weeks. Crown Court cases have a Custody Time Limit of 182 days, roughly six months.

According to The Times, it takes 700 days on average to resolve a Crown Court case, and trials are regularly taking place 5 or 6 years after the alleged offence.

The relevant test for whether a Custody Time Limit on cases should be extended lives in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, Part III Section 22 (3). The Court does not have discretion to extend the Custody Time Limit at will, the legislation says that the Court “ shall not ” unless it is satisfied that the need for extension is due to one of three reasons, which are:

(1) the illness or absence of the accused, a necessary witness, a judge or a magistrate

(2) a postponement occasioned by the ordering by the court of separate trials in the case of two or more accused or two or more offences, or

(3) some other good and sufficient cause.

The Court must also be satisfied that the prosecution has acted with all due diligence and expedition.

This is the first hurdle, if all of the above is fulfilled then the Court has permission to extend the Custody Time Limit. “The appropriate court may … extend, and further extend the limit”. It is not bound to do so simply because the Prosecution apply for it to be extended and the test is satisfied.

As may be telling from my emphasis above, the element of the test which was considered in R (Bernard) v Snaresbrook, is what does and does not constitute a good and sufficient cause. Exceptional circumstances which cause courts to be backlogged, such as the inability to run trials due to the pandemic and lockdown, and the exceptionally intense pressure on courts because of multiple unforeseen court closures in circumstances which are exceptional, have been accepted in the past to be “good and sufficient cause”. Systemic court failings because of the inability of courts to hold trials within Custody Time Limits when defendants are incarcerated are “a good cause [but] not necessarily… a sufficient one”, according to DPP v Woolwich [2020] EWHC 3243.

This sets out the background to the law, whilst we have discovered the wardrobe, we have not yet entered the Narnia of R (on the application of) Bernard.

R (Bernard) v Snaresbrook

The Judgment of Mrs Justice Eady DBE is broadly consistent with that of previous courts. It highlights at [40] that there must be a pressure which is more intense, or particular circumstances which mean that the hearing cannot take place, relying on R (on the application of McAuley) v Crown Court at Coventry [2012] EWHC 680 (Admin). At [44] it highlights that the Court has a discretion to extend the CTL, and “is not bound to do so” even if the Court is satisfied that there is a need for the extension due to some good and sufficient cause. The Court’s discretion may therefore be exercised in favour of the Defendant who opposes the extension, but not in favour of the Crown who bring the application.

Bernard at [62]-[66] further confirms the rulings by earlier courts, that although listing difficulties are a good cause, are not a sufficient cause if ‘the limitations on the court’s resources arose from a lack of adequate funding’, and that ‘ unprecedented increases in trials’ were not a sufficient cause in this particular case. It also confirms that the burden of proving that there is good and sufficient cause remains with the prosecution, it is not with the defence to disprove that the prosecution’s cause is good and sufficient.

It was suggested by Mrs Justice Eady DBE during the hearing that it would have been appropriate to appeal the decision to list a trial outside the Custody Time Limits at the first hearing, rather than await the application to extend the Custody Time Limit. However, at paragraph 10 of the Judgment it was noted that there was “nothing… to suggest there was considered anything exceptional about the listing in this case”.

R v Tom Maughan

Six days after the hearing in Bernard, His Honour Judge Reid at Inner London Crown Court considered the matter of Mr Tom Maughan, who had been remanded in custody on a charge of Attempted Murder, his trial due to start 13 months after his arrest, and 7 months after the expiry of Mr Maughan’s Custody Time Limit. Whilst HHJ Reid accepted that it was “quite clear to [him] that [Mr Maughan] should remain in custody”, the “systemic financial constraints” which meant that the court could not sit at full capacity were not a “sufficient” reason to extend the Custody Time Limit, consistent with the judgment in Bernard and other High Court cases. Mr Maughan was released with bail conditions, notwithstanding that the offence with which he is charged carries a custodial sentence with a starting point in excess of 20 years.

HHJ Reid attributed the Court’s inability to try Mr Maughan within his Custody Time Limit to the approach from Parliament. Riel Karmy-Jones KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association said that it was “no surprise to anyone working in the criminal justice system”, and “a disaster waiting to happen”.

Conclusion

It is clear from both of these cases that the current Custody Time Limit of 6 months is wholly inconsistent with the reality of current court capacity.

The really interesting question is this: what can, or will, Parliament do to change this?

Colette Russell

2 Dr Johnson’s Buildings

Wajahat Sherwani of 2DRJ Barristers acted for the applicant in the matter of Bernard. Colette Russell attended the Appeal hearing during their first six months of Pupillage.

To instruct Wajahat please contact his clerks on 0207 936 2613 or email clerks@2drj.com