HUMAN RIGHTS

[2020] NICA 1

[2020] NICA 1
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.

[2019] NICA 75

[2019] NICA 75
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.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2239

[2019] EWCA Crim 2239
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.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2238

[2019] EWCA Crim 2238
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.

[2019] EWCA Civ 2025

[2019] EWCA Civ 2025
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.

[2019] EWHC 3123 (Admin)

[2019] EWHC 3123 (Admin)
DC (Hickinbottom LJ, Johnson J)
20 November 2019

It had been lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to add r.7(1A) to the Prison Rules 1999, which removed his own power to transfer life prisoners to open conditions if they were subject to a deportation order in respect of which they had no extant right to appeal. Treating such prisoners who, at the end of their period of detention, were inherently unlikely to resettle in UK communities, differently from other prisoners, by not affording them an opportunity to be transferred to open conditions or enjoy release on temporary licence, was not a manifestly disproportionate means of pursuing the legitimate aim of prioritising the other prisoners who were likely to resettle in UK communities.

[2019] EWCA Civ 1954

[2019] EWCA Civ 1954
CA (Civ Div) (Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Simon LJ, Thirlwall LJ)
14 November 2019

Where a defendant’s time remanded in custody abroad prior to his extradition to the UK was not credited towards his sentence because of a failure to specify in open court the number of relevant days, as required by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.243(2), he was not entitled to have those days credited after the expiry of the period for bringing a statutory appeal. The prerogative of mercy could not be used in substitution for conventional statutory routes for the correction of errors in the sentencing process.

[2019] EWHC 2957 (Admin)

[2019] EWHC 2957 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Dingemans LJ, Chamberlain J)
6 November 2019

The Extinction Rebellion Autumn Uprising which took place at multiple sites in London between 7 and 19 October 2019 and which involved gatherings of protestors engaging in “disruptive actions” to challenge police resources and pressure the state into responding to their demands for change was not a “public assembly” within the Public Order Act 1986 s.14(1). Accordingly, the senior police officer designated to coordinate the police response to the Uprising had had no power to impose a condition under that provision. The court defined “public assembly” in s.14(1).

Scroll to top