DC (President of the QBD, William Davis J)
20 May 2020
An application for disclosure was refused where the claimants had all the information necessary to challenge a special prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute a victim who had allegedly made a false allegation of rape against their son. Disclosure of the documents sought had no relevance to the decision not to prosecute and the focus should have been whether the prosecutor’s decision was perverse.
CA (Crim Div) (Lindblom LJ, Hilliard J, Judge Flewitt QC)
6 May 2020
On a true construction of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 reg.5, the consequence of any breach of the exemption requirements under Sch.2 para.3(1) was that a waste treatment company’s operation was no longer an “exempt waste operation” and had ceased, on the breach, to be an “exempt facility”. At that point it could only be a “regulated facility”, for which no permit had been granted.
QBD (Admin) (Spencer J)
4 May 2020
The court declined to grant bail to a Polish national where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to submit to custody and would commit further offences if bail was granted.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Fulford LJ, McGowan J, Cavanagh J)
29 April 2020
The Court of Appeal affirmed that the test for dishonesty in the criminal context was that set out by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (t/a Crockfords Club)  UKSC 67, expressly overruling R. v Ghosh (Deb Baran)  Q.B. 1053. The effect was that, in Ivey, the Supreme Court had altered the established common law approach to precedent in the criminal courts by stating that the test for dishonesty it had identified, albeit strictly contained in obiter dicta, should be followed in preference to an otherwise binding authority of the Court of Appeal.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Fraser J, Sir Nicholas Blake)
23 April 2020
A “patteggiamento”, consisting of a negotiated agreement for a penalty in criminal cases, equated to a criminal conviction under Italian law. It could also be regarded as a “conviction” for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 art.21, enabling the registration and enforcement of an Italian confiscation order pursuant to art.21(2).
QBD (Admin) (Dove J)
3 April 2020
There were clear and demonstrable grounds to believe that an individual whose extradition had been sought by the United States for allegedly kidnapping his daughter during a custody visit and threatening and harassing his ex-partner would fail to surrender to bail. His claims that as an asthmatic the prison conditions where he was being held were inadequate in view of the corona virus pandemic were rejected. The prison service owed him a duty of care in accordance with existing guidance and he could take up those issues with the prison authorities.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Sir Nicholas Blake)
26 March 2020
The Court of Appeal issued guidance in relation to the calculation of surcharge orders.
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, McGowan J, Butcher J)
25 March 2020
Although there had been failures by the prosecution to comply with disclosure requirements during the appellant’s trial for offences of possession of an imitation firearm and possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, the judge had resolved those issues in a fair and proportionate way. The verdicts returned by the jury accorded with the evidence and there was no doubt about the safety of the conviction.
CA (NI) (Stephens LJ, Treacy LJ, Keegan J)
23 March 2020
The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland considered the current practice regarding the grant of legal aid in relation to applications before the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
CA (Crim Div) (Simler LJ, Goss J, Judge Jeremy Richardson QC)
19 March 2020
In circumstances where an offender had pleaded guilty to various road traffic offences, the Crown Court had imposed penalty points upon his licence where there was no power to do so as the offender had also been disqualified from driving. Further, two summary matters had been committed for sentence to the Crown Court under the wrong legislative regime, namely the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.3 when it should have been s.6, although that had not invalidated the entire committal.