CA (Civ Div) (Moylan LJ, Peter Jackson LJ)
17 October 2019
Respondents to committal proceedings were entitled to be provided with legal representation if they wanted it, and would qualify for non-means-tested legal aid. Courts were obliged to ensure that such protection was made available, otherwise any resulting committal order might be procedurally irregular.
CA (Civ Div) (Green LJ)
16 September 2019
The applicant, who was appealing against his sentence after being committed to prison for contempt of court for 21 months, had not made out his case, which was based partly on alleged threats from other prisoners, for the grant of bail.
DC (Irwin LJ, Butcher J)
11 July 2019
Where a magistrates’ court made a contingent dog destruction order under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.4A(4), the order could nominate a person responsible for destroying the dog if necessary, and provide for delivery up of the dog, but those powers could equally be exercised at a later date following a complaint or breach. As contingent destruction orders were civil remedies, the court could also vary, rescind or suspend them via its powers under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.63.
QBD (NI) (Treacy LJ)
24 May 2019
A school principal’s request to the police that a police constable working at his school should be removed from his duties because of an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable young woman was not a “complaint” for the purposes of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 which should have been referred to the Police Ombudsman. Accordingly, the police service’s failure to refer the matter to the Ombudsman did not vitiate the subsequent disciplinary proceedings which resulted in his dismissal. In obiter comments, the court set out considerations which should inform a police force’s determination of whether a communication that had been made to it constituted “a complaint about the police force” under the Act.
CA (Civ Div) (Davis LJ, Irwin LJ)
21 May 2019
The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against a refusal of permission to apply for judicial review; by reason of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18(1) it had no jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal because the decision under challenge was in a criminal cause or matter. The court made general observations with regard to appeals from judgments in criminal causes or matters.
QBD (Jefford J)
15 May 2019
A private prosecutor was not entitled to payment out of central funds of his costs relating to confiscation order enforcement proceedings, as the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 s.17 was not intended to apply to civil proceedings in the High Court, even if the proceedings were consequential on criminal proceedings.
CA (Civ Div) (Henderson LJ, Nicola Davies LJ, Rose LJ)
10 April 2019
The Court of Appeal reduced a nine-month sentence for the breach of two freezing orders to one of six months’ imprisonment in light of the effect the contemnor’s imprisonment was having on her 13-year-old son. However, the disruption to the relationship between mother and son did not justify the suspension of the sentence.
CA (Civ Div) (Patten LJ, Hamblen LJ, Holroyde LJ)
9 April 2019
Where a company had a proprietary claim over proceeds of fraud because they had been obtained through the unlawful use of its property by its directors, it was entitled to assert its claim in priority to a confiscation order obtained by the CPS.
QBD (Admin) (Dingemans J)
4 April 2019
A district judge had adopted a proper approach to the extradition hearing of a requested person acting as a litigant in person. It was not necessary for every judgment involving a litigant in person to explain the judge’s compliance with good practice regarding litigants in person; the onus was not on the court to prove that a proper procedure had been adopted.
CA (Civ Div) (Hamblen LJ, Holroyde LJ)
28 March 2019
A sentence of six months’ imprisonment imposed for contempt of court following deliberate and repeated breaches of freezing injunctions did not fall outside the range of sentences which could reasonably be regarded as appropriate. The breaches had resulted in funds which should have been available to the victims of failed investment schemes being dissipated for the contemnor’s benefit.