Farah Damji, R (on the application of) v The Crown Court at Wood Green

Judicial review of a Crown Court decision extending custody time limits is concerned with legality, not a merits appeal. The reviewing court asks whether the decision was open to the trial judge on orthodox judicial review grounds.

Under section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, an extension requires good and sufficient cause and prosecution conduct marked by due diligence and expedition. The court must consider the statutory purposes, including minimising pre-trial custody and controlling extensions. Defence conduct and the issues actually raised are relevant. The prosecution need not anticipate undisclosed defence arguments or pursue speculative inquiries. An appellate court should avoid microanalysis and interfere only where the decision is legally flawed or perverse.

The claimant was remanded in custody awaiting trial on stalking, theft and fraud charges. The Crown Court extended her custody time limits to 14 February 2025 after allowing an adjournment so that she could obtain expert evidence concerning telecommunications material disclosed following her defence statement.

The claimant sought judicial review of the extension decision. She alleged that the prosecution had failed to disclose relevant digital evidence promptly, had acted without due diligence and expedition, and that disclosure remained incomplete. The central issue was whether the Crown Court was entitled to conclude that there was good and sufficient cause for the extension and that the prosecution had satisfied the statutory diligence requirement.

1. Application refused. None of the claimant’s grounds was arguable. The court’s role was limited to reviewing the legality of the Crown Court’s decision; it was not entitled to decide afresh whether an extension should have been granted.
2. Section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 requires both good and sufficient cause for the extension and prosecution conduct involving all due diligence and expedition. The purposes identified in R v Manchester Crown court, ex parte McDonald include keeping pre-trial custody as short as reasonably practicable, requiring proper preparation by the prosecution and ensuring judicial control of extensions. The court must be adequately informed, but a common-sense approach is appropriate.
3. The judge was entitled to conclude that, before the defence statement, the prosecution was not obliged to obtain and disclose the IP addresses and related metadata sought by the claimant. The claimant’s police interviews and prepared statements did not advance a specific positive case concerning the disputed messages and emails. The prosecution was entitled to proceed on the issues actually raised, rather than anticipate arguments or pursue speculative lines of inquiry.
4. The defence statement served on 17 September 2024 materially changed and particularised the claimant’s case and triggered a substantial disclosure exercise. Although disclosure was not completed within 14 days, the judge was entitled to regard strict compliance as unrealistic given the volume and scope of the requests.
5. The prosecution’s conceded reliance on impermissible expert opinion from the officer did not cause the adjournment. The court could not assess the CTL application on the hypothetical basis that the section 78 application might have failed. The operative cause of the adjournment was the claimant’s late particularisation, request for examination of the complainant’s phone and decision to seek expert evidence.
6. The court declined to conduct a wide-ranging review of earlier disclosure matters which could have been raised when the CTLs were previously extended without opposition. The medical-records point was also immaterial: the complainant’s mental health was not put in issue until the defence statement, and the expert-evidence application, rather than any delay concerning medical records, caused the adjournment.

The application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision. It concerns judicial review of the Crown Court’s decision dated 14 November 2024 to extend the custody time limits.