Tarun Puri, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

An extension of time for judicial review requires consideration of the broader question whether there is good reason to extend time. Relevant matters include the explanation for delay, prejudice to the defendant, the merits, and the public interest.

Substantial and inadequately explained delay may cause irremediable prejudice where evidence has been lost. Weak merits and the fact that the challenged decision will soon have little practical effect also weigh against an extension. A previous decision on materially different facts does not establish that time should be extended in the present case.

The claimant had received a police caution for possession of Class B drugs in July 2018. After a DBS check prevented him obtaining employment, he sought deletion of the caution and later brought judicial review proceedings challenging its retention and administration.

Permission had previously been refused. The claimant renewed his application and also sought an extension of time and permission to rely on psychological expert evidence concerning dyspraxia and his understanding of the caution.

The central issues were whether there was good reason to extend time, whether the claim had sufficient merit, and whether the proposed expert evidence justified granting permission.

1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused. The application for an extension of time and the application to rely on expert evidence therefore failed.

2. The question was not simply whether the claimant had a satisfactory explanation for his delay. Whether time should be extended required a broader assessment informed by prejudice to the defendant, the merits of the proposed claim and the public interest, as illustrated by Maharaj v National Energy Corporation of Trinidad v Tobago [2019] UKPC 5; [2019] 1 WLR 983.

3. No satisfactory explanation had been given for the considerable delay. The claimant’s case that he had not understood the implications of the caution was weakened by the likely advice given by his solicitor that the caution might appear on a DBS check. There was also a further seven-month delay after the claimant learned of the DBS disclosure.

4. The delay caused considerable and irremediable prejudice. Nearly six years after the event, the defendant could not realistically obtain evidence from an officer who remembered the circumstances of the caution.

5. The merits were not strong. Stratton v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2013] EWHC 1561 Admin was confined to its facts. The present case involved the correct caution form, and the material circumstances differed. The recorded timings did not permit firm conclusions that the cautioning process had been rushed, and the expert evidence had to be considered alongside the likely legal advice received.

6. The public interest did not favour an extension. Expungement would remove any realistic prospect of prosecution, while the caution would shortly cease to be disclosed even on an enhanced DBS check. The claim would therefore soon be academic or of limited practical importance.

• High Court (Administrative Court) — Permission to apply for judicial review was previously refused on 17 October 2023. The renewed application, including the applications to extend time and rely on expert evidence, was refused by [2024] EWHC 160 (Admin).