DC (Dingemans LJ, Spencer J)
6 February 2020
Although accused of serious crimes, two requested persons were discharged from extradition proceedings after India had failed to provide assurances that their potential life sentences would be reducible until 45 minutes before judgment was due to be handed down. India had known that assurances were required and should have indicated to the judge that it intended to seek them, so that a timetable could be prepared.
CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, David Richards LJ, Leggatt LJ)
23 January 2020
The fact that an injunction against “persons unknown” referred to the requirement for an “intention” to impede lawful activities did not render the injunction insufficiently clear or certain to be enforceable by committal to prison following a breach. “Intention” did not have any special legal meaning and was not difficult for a member of the public to understand.
CA (Civ Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Holroyde LJ, Nicola Davies LJ)
23 January 2020
A prison governor’s decision that a category A prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence should attend the hearing of a civil claim by video link, rather than in person, did not breach his right to a fair trial under ECHR art.6. Nor had the decision-maker unlawfully fettered her discretion in refusing the prisoner’s request to be produced physically at the hearing of his claim. However, the decision had been made on the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of an important fact, and would have to be retaken in the light of up-to-date information.
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Stephens LJ, McCloskey LJ)
8 January 2020
The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland gave guidance on the correct approach to sentencing for fraud and theft where an offender was in a position of trust.
CA (NI) (McCloskey LJ, O'Hara J, Huddleston J)
20 December 2019
The court considered the violent offences prevention order regime under the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 Pt 8, including the distinction between an order imposed at sentence and a free-standing order, and provided general guidance as to the relevant legal test for imposition of such an order and procedural fairness.
CA (Crim Div) (Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Garnham J, Chamberlain J)
17 December 2019
In light of a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Appeal analysed the safety of the conviction of an offender who had assisted one of those responsible for the bombings which took place on the London transport system in 2005. Even though the Grand Chamber found that the proceedings before the domestic courts had violated the offender’s right to a fair trial under the ECHR art.6, that conclusion did not mean that the offender’s conviction was unsafe.
CA (Crim Div) (Green LJ, Nicol J, Judge Walden-Smith)
3 December 2019
A restraining order that prohibited an offender from entering the town of Stevenage for 10 years was reasonable, necessary, and served the legitimate purpose of protecting the offender’s former partner from violence. Although restraining orders tended to focus upon specific roads or premises rather than whole towns, that did not mean that in an appropriate case a broader restriction might not be appropriate. The evaluation was always fact- and context-specific.
QBD (Admin) (Farbey J)
28 November 2019
A requested person’s extradition to Poland for fraud was disproportionate, oppressive due to the passage of time, and breached ECHR art.8. The district judge’s reasoning regarding the fact that the individual was not a fugitive had been unclear, he had erred in finding that the individual had previous convictions for fraud, and he had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 19 years had passed since the offending.
QBD (Admin) (Stuart-Smith J)
21 November 2019
Fresh evidence submitted by a requested person did not support the conclusion that her two young children would be left homeless if she was extradited, but rather that her partner would be permitted to look after them. Accordingly, her extradition to Lithuania to face trial for the offence of possession with intent to supply class A drugs did not breach ECHR art.8.
CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Baker LJ, Green LJ)
21 November 2019
Although the principle that the welfare of the child was paramount did not apply to applications for an order for secure accommodation under the Children Act 1989 s.25, the court was not required to abdicate all responsibility for evaluating the impact of the proposed placement on the child’s welfare. The court was also obliged to consider whether the making of such an order was proportionate, that being one of the “relevant criteria” for deciding whether keeping a child in secure accommodation was justified. The court had to carry out its own evaluation of whether the order would safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, but the intensity of that evaluation would depend on the facts of the case.