Michael Sierotko & Anor, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Manchester Crown Square
[2023] EWHC 1187 (Admin)
Andrew Osarinmwian, R (on the application of) v Manchester Crown Court
26 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 76 (Admin)
High Court
Someone was in jail and the court extended their stay. The reason for the extension was the prosecution's slowness in providing evidence. The higher court looked at the situation and thought that the lower court's decision was okay, even though mistakes were made by the prosecution. So, the jailed person stayed in jail.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review of Manchester Crown Court's decision to extend a custody time limit (CTL) in an EncroChat case.
- •The prosecution failed to provide disclosed materials as ordered, leading to the trial's vacation and CTL extension.
- •The central issue was whether the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition.
- •The claim was brought sub-optimally, filed two months after the decision with no prior warning.
- •The court considered the claim on a 'rolled-up' basis, addressing permission and substantive relief simultaneously.
- •The claimant argued the judge's conclusion on due diligence was unreasonable due to prosecution errors and lack of preparedness.
- •The prosecution's errors included misinterpreting the disclosure order's temporal scope, misappreciating the required file format, using the wrong email address, and failing to copy in the claimant's solicitors.
Legal Principles
Whether the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition in providing disclosed materials.
Statute and case authorities (specifically referenced to Sierotko §§11-14)
Judicial review is a supervisory review, not a rehearing or consideration of fresh evidence.
Sierotko §16
The court's role in judicial review is to determine whether the judge's conclusion was reasonable in public law terms.
Sierotko §16
Outcomes
Claim for judicial review dismissed.
The judge's conclusion that the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition was reasonably open to him, despite prosecution errors.
Permission for judicial review granted.
The claim was properly arguable.
Application for interim relief (release on bail) falls away.
The claim for judicial review failed.
Similar Cases
Onasis Mensah, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Manchester
[2023] EWHC 2372 (Admin)
Hesamedin Navabi, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Durham
[2023] EWHC 943 (Admin)
Darykie Ramos Molina, R (on the application of) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook
[2024] EWHC 816 (Admin)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lewes Crown Court
[2024] EWHC 1885 (Admin)