Olivia Checa-Dover acts for the Metropolitan Police Service, successfully resisting a judicial review in R (on the application of Bizeray) v North London Magistrates’ Court [2026] EWHC 1564 (Admin)

Not all mistakes are equal, as was proved in the recent case of R (on the application of Bizeray) v North London Magistrates’ Court [2026] EWHC 1564 (Admin)*

This claim was brought by a man under investigation for the suspected possession of indecent images of children. Against the backdrop of alleged defects with the search warrant and investigation, he challenged the court’s decisions to extend his police bail on 23 October 2025 and 3 February 2026, following applications seeking the same from the officer in the case.

The governing rules require applications to extend police bail to be served on the suspect. By way of administrative error, the first application was not served on the Claimant; he also alleged that he had not been served with the second. Further, he argued that there were inaccuracies in the applications that he could have remedied had he been so served.

Following a rolled-up hearing on 16 June 2026, Mr Justice Sweeting dismissed the claim and helpfully re-stated the following principles:

1. Adherence to the procedural rules, and in particular proper service, remains vital. However, “the court’s concern in public law is with substance, not form. On the facts of this case, the Claimant has not demonstrated that he was denied a fair opportunity to be heard, or that the integrity of the decision-making process was compromised” at [49].
2. Officers must present applications to the court fairly and accurately, being careful not to omit objectively relevant information capable of making a difference to the court’s decision or the fairness of the process. In particular:“It was accepted that an applicant for an extension of pre-charge bail must present material information fairly to the court. However, that duty, it was argued, does not require the police to set out their case with the detail or balance of a judgment, nor to disclose the entirety of the intelligence or evidential material underpinning an ongoing investigation” at [53];

   “Drawing those strands together, I would accept the First Interested Party’s submissions on Ground 2. The Claimant’s criticisms, though detailed, do not establish any material failure of candour. Nor do they demonstrate that the magistrates were misled in a way which undermined the lawfulness of the decisions. Even if some matters could have been expressed with greater precision, I am satisfied that any imperfections identified are immaterial and that it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different. The central features of the case which were relevant to the decisions namely the existence of indecent images on devices linked to the Claimant, and the need for ongoing forensic investigation would have remained unchanged” at [62].

3. However clear the procedural irregularity, the Administrative Court is entitled to look at whether there is an alternative, more appropriate remedy and, as ever, whether the mistake made a difference to the result:72.   Further, as the First Interested Party submits, these issues are the subject of separate proceedings brought by the Claimant, including applications relating to seized property and a civil claim under Article 8. That provides an alternative and more appropriate forum in which the lawfulness and consequences of the search and seizure can be examined. It reinforces the conclusion that judicial review of the bail extensions is not the proper vehicle for these complaints.73.   Finally, and in any event, the position falls to be considered through the lens of section 31 of SCA 1981. Even if the Claimant were able to establish that the magistrates ought to have been informed of the failures relating to the warrant or the inventory, it is, in my judgment, highly unlikely that this would have affected the outcome. The core features of the case, the existence of multiple seized devices, the identification of indecent images, and the need for ongoing forensic analysis would have remained unchanged. The defects relied upon by the Claimant do not go to those fundamental matters.
4. Where the orders under challenge are no longer in force, the court is entitled to look at the absence of any practical ongoing effect in order to deem a claim academic and, thus, unsuited to judicial review:

“The claim is now, for all practical purposes, academic. The Claimant is no longer subject to bail; the Magistrates’ Court having refused a further extension on 23 April 2026. The grant of a quashing order would have no practical effect. Nor is this, in my judgment, a case in which it would be appropriate to grant declaratory relief notwithstanding that position. The issues raised are fact sensitive and directed to the particular circumstances of these applications; they do not give rise to a discrete point of wider public importance requiring authoritative determination” at [104].

More generally, the case reminds us that, however complex a case, the answer is still often found in basic principles.

Olivia was instructed by Suzanne Farley at DWF.

• Bizeray, R (On the Application Of) v North London Magistrates’ Court [2026] EWHC 1564 (Admin) (23 June 2026)