David Jani v Criminal Cases Review Commission

A renewed application for permission to seek judicial review must be confined to the grounds properly advanced in the claim. A reviewing court will not intervene where the decision challenged is merely premature or no reviewable decision has been made.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission is not required to arrange meetings between experts or obtain a joint statement. The Criminal Procedure Rules govern court proceedings, not the Commission’s investigative process. The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 and its Code of Practice regulate providers of forensic science services, not the Commission. A rational decision to defer disclosure of expert evidence does not become unlawful merely because the evidence is later disclosed.

David Jani, serving a custodial sentence following a rape conviction, applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for review and possible referral of his case to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. He relied on a report said to undermine trial evidence concerning diazepam.

His original judicial review claim challenged the Commission’s refusal to obtain trial transcripts and its refusal to disclose a responsive expert report. The transcript issue fell away when the transcripts were provided, and the report was later disclosed. The renewed application nevertheless raised further allegations, including that the Commission should arrange a joint meeting of the experts, delay, irrationality, unlawfulness and bad faith.

The central issues were whether those grounds were properly before the court, whether the Commission had failed to take a legally required procedural step, and whether any decision was sufficiently final and arguably unlawful to justify permission.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application served no practical purpose in relation to the original non-disclosure challenge because the responsive report had since been provided. Further allegations could not simply be introduced orally or in writing as new grounds of challenge in the renewed application.
2. The Commission had no obligation to arrange a meeting between the two experts or obtain a joint statement. Criminal Procedure Rules Part 19.6 applies to court proceedings, not the Commission’s investigative process. Even where the Rules apply, Part 19.6 leaves the direction of an expert meeting and joint statement to the judge’s discretion.
3. The Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 and the Code of Practice made under it apply to providers of forensic science services and persons carrying out forensic activities. The Commission is not carrying out forensic science activities when investigating a case. The Act does not impose on a court or tribunal an obligation to arrange a joint expert meeting or joint statement.
4. No reviewable decision had yet been made on whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. If a referral were made, any question concerning a joint meeting or statement would be for that court under the Rules. If referral were refused, the Commission would issue provisional reasons and invite further comment; consideration of a joint meeting might arise at that later stage.
5. The court found no reasonably arguable case of unlawfulness or irrationality in the Commission’s treatment of the alleged expert evidence, the asserted fictitious bottle of diazepam, or the delay. The Commission had given proper reasons for the delay. Its initial decision not to disclose the responsive report was rational and lawful, and later disclosure to avoid prolonging the litigation did not establish unlawfulness or irrationality.
6. The allegations of bad faith concerning documents were either irrelevant to the renewed application or related to matters previously raised and addressed through a further review.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Jay refused permission on the papers because the claim was premature while the Commission had not decided whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. On renewal, Mrs Justice Jefford refused permission: [2025] EWHC 3384 (Admin).