QBD (Admin) (Garnham J)
18 January 2017
Where European arrest warrants were based on aggregate sentences imposed under the Polish penal code on offenders who had re-offended before judgment was pronounced on an earlier offence, there was no breach of the principle of double jeopardy because the calculation of the aggregate sentences recognised and gave credit for sentences which had already been served in full.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Openshaw J, Judge Moss QC)
9 December 2016
The words “undue delay” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.40(7)(a) could not be confined to cases of delay amounting to an abuse of process which would justify a stay of the criminal proceedings. A Crown Court judge had not erred when finding that the court had no jurisdiction to make restraint orders in respect of property held by the defendants in a tax fraud case because there had been undue delay in continuing the proceedings.
QBD (Admin) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, Leggatt J)
25 November 2016
In extradition proceedings, it was clear from Puceviciene v Lithuanian Judicial Authority  EWHC 1862 (Admin) that the consideration of whether a state had looked at using mutual legal assistance was not relevant to whether extradition was barred under the Extradition Act 2003 s.12A. Further, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (United Nations) art.31 did not provide a defence to extradition, it provided only for immunity from the imposition of penalties by the UK.
DC (Davis LJ, Blake J)
16 November 2016
An individual could, in principle, bring a private prosecution against someone who had been given a prior police caution for the same incident, and where that caution was still extant. However, that was only so as long as there had been no assurance at the time of administering the caution that there would be no future prosecution. It would be bad practice on the part of the police not to use the recommended form of caution in paras 72 and 88 of the Ministry of Justice guidance about simple cautions, issued in November 2013.
QBD (Admin) (Dingemans J)
15 November 2016
A requested person’s extradition to France to serve a prison sentence for offences of organised fraud and money laundering did not amount to an abuse of process as considered in Zakrzewski v Poland  UKSC 2 and was not barred by reason of specialty pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003 s.17.
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Holroyde J, Cheema-Grubb J)
4 November 2016
Convictions under the Malicious Damage Act 1861 s.36 for obstructing engines or carriages on railways were upheld where two men who had walked through the Channel Tunnel from France before being apprehended close to the English entrance. Their actions had caused rail services to be suspended and that interruption was plainly an obstruction of a number of engines and carriages.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Thomas LCJ, Popplewell J, Goss J)
20 October 2016
A prison officer’s conviction for misconduct in public office was upheld where he had given information to a journalist in return for payment. There had been no impropriety regarding the relevant newspapers’ voluntary disclosure to the police which had identified the officer.
DC (McCombe LJ, Ouseley J)
15 July 2016
A requesting state’s failure to inform the court that an individual in extradition proceedings was entitled to a retrial, such that his extradition was initially refused but then subsequently ordered, was not an abuse of process. However, it was a breach of the public policy rule requiring all parties to bring their whole case before the court to be finally decided and was a factor that should be taken into account when considering the statutory bars to extradition.
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Judge Inman QC)
23 June 2016
In considering the mens rea of the offence of making an indecent image of a child contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(1)(a), a distinction had to be drawn between cases where images were made by downloading to a phone or computer and those where the image was made by the more direct action of photographing or filming. In cases of photographing or filming, the s.1(1)(a) offence was made out by the deliberate act of photographing or filming without the need for knowledge that the image was or was likely to be of an underage child.
QBD (Admin) (Burnett J, Cranston J)
14 April 2016
Issue estoppel arising from the application of res judicata was not appropriate in the context of extradition proceedings. There was nothing in the scheme of the Framework Decision or the Extradition Act 2003 that supported a different approach. A requested person’s extradition to Latvia had not been an abuse of process even though he had previously been discharged in Scotland pursuant to a European arrest warrant on substantially the same matters; he had avoided extradition the first time because of the deficiencies in the medical treatment available for him on his return, but the position had since changed.