Key Facts
- •Mr. Sierotko and Mr. Downs' judicial review claims challenged the Crown Court's extension of custody time limits (CTLs) in their EncroChat case.
- •The prosecution's late service of a crucial reliability report (Specific Reliability Report) was a key factor leading to the trial's vacation.
- •The defendants' potential lack of representation at trial due to counsel's unavailability was another significant factor considered by the Crown Court judge.
- •The main evidence against the defendants came from EncroChat data obtained through Operation Venetic.
- •The defence raised concerns about the admissibility, attribution, and reliability (including incompleteness) of the EncroChat evidence.
- •The Crown Court judge extended the CTLs, citing both the late report and potential lack of representation.
- •The claimants argued the prosecution lacked due diligence and expedition, especially concerning the late service of the reliability report and the failure to disclose the Generic Reliability Report earlier.
Legal Principles
The court can extend CTLs only if the need for the extension is due to good and sufficient cause and the prosecution acted with all due diligence and expedition.
Section 22(3) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985
Good and sufficient cause for CTL extension is a matter for the court on the facts of the case.
McDonald and other cases (cited in Archbold)
Due diligence and expedition is a question of fact, considering the case's complexity, compliance with time limits, material volume, defence engagement, and trial readiness.
McDonald and Gibson (cited in Archbold and the Judge's Ruling)
The intensity of review in judicial review of CTL extensions involves rigorous scrutiny, but recognizes the Crown Court judge's role in exercising discretion.
Gibson
A lack of prosecutorial due diligence and expedition that causes or contributes to the need for a CTL extension is fatal to the extension.
Bagoutie, Gibson, and Archbold
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review granted, but substantive applications refused.
The judge found that although the prosecution's service of the Specific Reliability Report was late, the defence's lack of engagement and the potential for the defendants to be unrepresented at trial independently justified the extension of the CTLs. The judge did not find a material lack of due diligence and expedition on the part of the prosecution.