CA (Civ Div) (Sir James Munby PFD, Davis LJ, Lindblom LJ)
17 March 2017
The imposition by the Probation Service of licence conditions restricting an offender’s contact with his children was lawful and proportionate, and objectively justified, given the facts and circumstances of the case. A local authority’s functions and powers under the Children Act 1989 in care proceedings concerning children could not be used to defeat the Probation Service’s functions and powers under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) Order 2015.
DC (Burnett LJ, Sweeney J)
24 February 2017
Although an individual had been a victim of trafficking he had been a fugitive facing a robbery charge when he left Lithuania. Although he developed mental health problems there was no suggestion he was unable to resist the impulse to commit suicide. It was not unjust or oppressive to extradite him.
QBD (Admin) (Green J)
22 February 2017
In an extradition case involving a requested person who had children, the judge, whether at first instance or on appeal, had to pay particular attention to the interests of the children. In appropriate cases, that could only be properly achieved by the production of fresh evidence about and/or from the children.
QBD (Admin) (Blake J)
10 February 2017
The public interest in extradition was outweighed by other factors in the case of a 55-year-old man who was in poor health and who was required to return to Poland to serve a custodial term for non-payment of a £600 compensation order. It was possible that the man had been unaware of the requirement to pay compensation, and it would be disproportionate to extradite him given that the sum was small, he could not have paid it at the relevant time, and was only able to pay it now because of his employment in the UK.
QBD (Admin) (Garnham J)
3 February 2017
When deciding whether extradition would be disproportionate, judges were obliged to consider whether the foreign authority could take measures that would be less coercive than extradition. An interview with the accused through mutual legal assistance could not amount to a less coercive measure under the Extradition Act 2003 s.21A(3)(c).
DC (Beatson LJ, Nicol J)
27 January 2017
A local authority’s byelaws limiting the period for which a boat could be moored against its land had been made for a proper purpose, namely preventing the nuisance of limited river access for others, and were not irrational or invalid. A houseboat owner convicted for breach of the byelaws had failed to show that they breached ECHR art.8 rights in principle or on the particular facts of his case.
QBD (Admin) (Dingemans J)
25 January 2017
The court upheld an extradition order in respect of a Polish national convicted of involvement in drug trafficking. Although he suffered from a chronic rheumatologic disease, there was evidence that his medication would be available in Poland and that the Polish court could order his release from prison if the circumstances warranted it.
QBD (Admin) (Sir Stephen Silber)
20 January 2017
An offence in a Polish European arrest warrant of affronting a police officer with insults was not an extradition offence and did not amount to an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 s.5.
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.
DC (Gross LJ, Ouseley J)
21 October 2016
An individual’s extradition to Poland was ordered to face prosecution for gang-related drug offence conspiracies where there were no reasonable grounds to believe that a decision to charge or try had not been taken, and extradition would not be oppressive, unjust or a disproportionate interference with his ECHR art.8 rights.