s.2

[2017] EWHC 1650 (QB)
[2017] EWHC 1650 (QB)
QBD (Warby J)
7 July 2017

A mother failed to establish that a police detective had made a slanderous statement about her while investigating her allegations that her child had been sexually abused by a family member. Although the detective had told the child’s social worker that the mother had lied during a conversation with him, the transfer of that statement onto the child’s medical notes was not likely to cause the mother any reputational harm of the serious nature required by the Defamation Act 2013 s.1. In any event, the statement was protected by qualified privilege.

QBD (Admin) (Silber J)
23 May 2017

A European arrest warrant which sufficiently particularised offences was valid for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2 The court was entitled to take the information provided on the warrant at face value and it was not its role, given the principle of mutual respect, to hinder extradition requests.

[2017] EWHC 167 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 167 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Beatson LJ, Nicol J)
7 February 2017

An individual had been “convicted” for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2 where their detention in a secure hospital had been ordered after criminal proceedings against them were discontinued on account of their mental illness.

[2016] EWHC 3518 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 3518 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Collins J)
6 December 2016

An accusation European arrest warrant had not met the requirements of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(4)(c) as it was not possible for the requested person to know the degree of participation he was alleged to have had in the 21 offences mentioned.

[2016] EWCA Crim 2043
[2016] EWCA Crim 2043
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, William Davis J, Lavender J)
3 November 2016

The court refused permission to appeal against a conviction for murder where the defendant had relied on diminished responsibility. The reverse burden of proof in respect of diminished responsibility in the Homicide Act 1957 s.2(2) did not infringe ECHR art.6.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1617
[2016] EWCA Crim 1617
CA (Civ Div) (Davis LJ, Birss J, Judge Rook QC)
1 November 2016

Offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 s.92 extended not just to counterfeit goods but also to “grey goods”, namely goods where the trade mark had been affixed with the proprietor’s consent, but where the proprietor had not consented to their sale, distribution or possession by others.

[2016] EWHC 2471 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 2471 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Gross LJ, Andrews J)
12 October 2016

The court reiterated that there was a “very high hurdle” to overcome when seeking to challenge a decision of investigators of the Serious Fraud Office. While none of the authorities precluded a challenge, they lent no encouragement to the bringing of any such challenge.

MC (Judge Tempia)
16 September 2016

The court granted a request from the US for the extradition of a UK citizen accused of unlawfully accessing computers used by US Federal agencies and private companies and of misusing the data obtained. Although the subject of the request suffered from Asperger Syndrome and his ECHR art.8 rights were clearly engaged, extradition was proportionate and compatible with his Convention rights given the extremely serious charges and the fact that US prison medical facilities were such that his needs would be comprehensively met.

[2016] EWHC 2214 (QB)
[2016] EWHC 2214 (QB)
QBD (Slade J)
9 September 2016

The court refused a mother’s application for a Norwich Pharmacal order against the police to obtain material arising from a fraud investigation involving a personal development coach who had provided counselling to her daughter. Although the mother alleged that the coach had poisoned her daughter’s mind against her, she had no cause of action against the coach. The application also failed because the police had been investigating potential criminal conduct against women counselled by the coach, not against the mother.

[2016] EWHC 2039 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 2039 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Cranston J)
5 August 2016

When a designated person appealed against an asset-freezing order under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 s.26, the Treasury had to justify the order it had made. The court concluded that designation had been justified to prevent the appellant providing financial assistance to a proscribed organisation, but the renewal of the designation was not justified when, by the time of renewal, different circumstances applied.

Scroll to top