R v Katie Laura Tidmarsh

An application to extend time for appealing a conviction should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable error that could justify granting leave. A stay for abuse of process under the second limb of R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 depends on whether continuing the prosecution would affront the conscience of the court. Even where earlier prosecutorial assurances, reliance and detriment are arguable, the court must assess the competing public interests. The strong public interest in a jury trial for a serious allegation supported by apparently compelling evidence may outweigh the interest in holding the prosecution to an earlier decision not to charge, particularly where the original decision was made in good faith and the case was reopened after significant further evidence emerged.

The applicant was convicted of murdering a baby in her care after a jury trial in the Crown Court at Leicester. The prosecution had initially decided not to charge her, and that decision was confirmed on review. After subsequent family proceedings, including a fact-finding hearing concerning the child’s death, the criminal investigation was reopened and the applicant was charged.

The trial judge refused an application to stay the prosecution as an abuse of process and directed the jury on the prosecution case, the defence case, mens rea, circumstantial evidence, and murder and manslaughter. The jury convicted by a majority of 10 to 2. A Single Judge refused an extension of time and leave to appeal, having considered the proposed grounds. The applicant renewed the application, challenging the abuse ruling and the directions. The central issues were whether any proposed ground was arguable and whether the prosecution should have been stayed.

1. Application refused. The court refused the 614-day extension of time and the related applications for leave and a representation order. There was no purpose in extending time because the applicant had not demonstrated any arguable ground of appeal.

2. The challenge to the abuse-of-process ruling was governed by the second limb identified in R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42. The fundamental question was whether allowing the prosecution to continue would affront the conscience of the court. That question commonly arises where prosecutorial or investigative misconduct has made continuation of the proceedings abhorrent.

3. The Single Judge had identified arguable issues about reliance on the assurance that the applicant would not be prosecuted and whether the decision not to terminate her pregnancy could constitute relevant prejudice. Those issues did not justify permission because the decisive balancing exercise favoured continuation of the trial. The initial decision not to prosecute had been made in good faith on the evidence then available. The prosecution was reopened after the family court’s fact-finding judgment, and its response was measured and proportionate.

4. The public interest in trying a person where apparently compelling evidence supports a murder charge was profound, and was enhanced because the alleged victim was a vulnerable child. That interest outweighed the competing interest in preventing the retraction of an assurance that a person would not be prosecuted.

5. Agreement of legal directions did not absolve the appellate court from deciding whether they were correct. However, the criticisms of the summing-up and directions disclosed no arguable error. The introductory summaries and the direction on circumstantial evidence were fair and balanced, and the challenged expressions were not improper when read in context.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2026] EWCA Crim 1236 . Refused the renewed application for a 614-day extension of time, leave to appeal and a representation order.
• Single Judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused an extension of time and leave to appeal after considering the proposed grounds on their merits.
• Crown Court at Leicester: Refused a stay of the murder prosecution for abuse of process; the applicant was convicted by a jury by a majority of 10 to 2.