In Ashish Magu v Criminal Cases Review Commission [2026] EWHC 1242 (Admin) the High Court provided important confirmation of one of the principles applicable in the review of decisions of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

The case concerned a request by the applicant that his conviction for assault be referred to the Crown Court by the CCRC for reconsideration.  The request was based upon what the applicant asserted were serious inconsistencies in the evidence levelled against him, in part arising from related proceedings in India and connected civil proceedings in the UK.  Having reviewed the evidence, the CCRC declined to make a reference, which the applicant sought to challenge by way of these proceedings.

The High Court refused permission for judicial review on the papers, and on renewal of the application by the Applicant, heard the question of permission at an oral hearing.

The Applicant raised a number of grounds of challenge against the CCRC decision, namely that the CCRC had:

  1. Applied the wrong test for whether the evidence he relied upon amounted to ‘bad character’ evidence, and would be admissible as such;
  2. Incorrectly placed itself in the position of the Crown Court;
  3. Failed to correctly consider the factual evidence;
  4. Failed to consider key submissions filed on behalf of the applicant;
  5. Been affected by bias in the determination of his application; and
  6. Had unreasonably refused to use its investigative powers to obtain evidence from the related court proceedings.

In its judgment, the Court held that:

  1. There was nothing to suggest the CCRC applied the wrong test when considering the question of bad character evidence;
  2. The CCRC correctly approached the issues from the perspective of the double question enumerated in R(Pearson);
  3. The role of the Administrative Court is not to decide whether it would have come to a different conclusion on the evidence;
  4. The provisional decision of the CCRC demonstrated clear engagement with the applicant’s assertion that the complainant had lied and had a motive to lie due to the satellite proceedings in the English civil courts and the Indian courts, even if the final decision did not make express reference to the question of ‘motive’, it being appropriate to read the two decisions together; and
  5. Applying the decision in R(El Heri), the Court held that the CCRC was not required to deal in its decisions with each and every point raised by an applicant.

The judgment is important in confirming that, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion that the principle in R(El Heri) only arose where the applicant had been particularly prolix, it is clear that the principle applies generally, but will apply with even greater force to applicants given to prolixity.

The successful Defendant was represented by Christopher Coyle, instructed by the CCRC.