DC (Males LJ, Julian Knowles J)
13 July 2020
The court examined the scope of its discretion in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 r.50.17(6)(a) to extend time for appealing in extradition cases. The rule was in similar terms to the power in CPR r.3.1(2)(a) to grant relief from sanctions in civil cases. As long as the various interests applicable specifically to extradition cases were borne in mind, the guidance given in Denton v TH White Ltd  EWCA Civ 906 applied in an extradition context.
PC (Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales)
8 June 2020
The court examined the operation of the regime in the Money Laundering (Prevention) Act 1996 (Antigua and Barbuda) Pt IV headed “Freezing and Forfeiture of Assets in Relation to Money Laundering” and the regime in Pt IVB headed “Civil Forfeiture”. It analysed the effect of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda on those regimes. The Act’s freeze order and civil forfeiture provisions were intended to operate in combination as an integrated regime and they did so in the civil rather than the criminal sphere. The practical effect of a finding that a defendant had engaged in money laundering was to place the burden on them to show to the civil standard that any property they owned had been acquired by legitimate means and sources of funding. That was reasonable and did not amount to charging the defendant with a criminal offence within the meaning of section 15 of the Constitution. The regime was proportionate and compatible with the Constitution.
QBD (Nicol J)
4 June 2020
An application for an interim injunction by serving police officers to prevent the police force from examining data from their mobile phones was refused where the police force had retained the data for the purposes of an investigation into their alleged use of drugs on police premises. An application by the police force for transfer of the proceedings from the Media and Communications list to the Administrative Court was refused: although there was a live investigation and those conducting it were subject to public law duties, it was not a breach of public law duties that was being alleged but the infringement of private law rights.
QBD (Admin) (Spencer J)
22 May 2020
A claimant, as part of a judicial review which went by consent in her favour, was entitled to recover the costs of intervening in unconnected proceedings in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The criminal appeal had been determining the same legal point that the judicial review would have considered, such that the costs were “incidental to” the judicial review proceedings for the purposes of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.51(1). The court suggested that the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee might consider issuing some formal guidance on the principles and practice of intervening in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
Sup Ct (OECS) (Judge Morley QC)
20 May 2020
In some cases it would be appropriate to stay criminal proceedings on the ground of undue delay even where prejudice to the defendant could not be established.
CA (Civ Div) (McCombe LJ, Peter Jackson LJ)
27 March 2020
A ticket tout’s appeal against a sentence of 21 weeks’ imprisonment for contempt of court was dismissed where sufficient credit had been applied for his guilty plea made at the door of the court, and the six-month starting point taken had been entirely appropriate given that the breach had been committed during the currency of a suspended sentence imposed for a similar breach of a High Court order.
CA (Civ Div) (McCombe LJ, King LJ, Holroyde LJ)
25 March 2020
A judge had not erred when relying on the guidance in C (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure), Re  Fam. 76 in ordering disclosure to the police of documents filed in care proceedings related to severe brain injuries suffered by a nine-week-old child.
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Geoffrey Vos C, Patten LJ, Males LJ)
18 March 2020
A judge had failed to apply the correct standard of proof when determining the defendants’ counterclaim of dishonest conspiracy against the claimants, and the matter was remitted to a new judge for re-determination.
DC (Lord Burnett LCJ, William Davis J)
13 March 2020
Where an extradition case had been remitted to a district judge under the Extradition Act 2003 s.106(3), the judge did not have jurisdiction to consider bars to extradition which had not been raised at the original hearing. The requested person had to raise all potential bars to extradition at the original hearing.
QBD (Admin) (Freedman J)
6 March 2020
In a case concerning a confiscation order made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, an individual’s judicial review challenge to a finding that a French property in which he had an interest amounted to the proceeds of crime was bound to fail. The Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which applied to confiscation orders made under the 1994 Act, made clear that there was no requirement for the Crown to prove that the assets against which enforcement was made had come from the particular drugs offence.