DC (Fulford LJ, Garnham J)
30 July 2020
The early release regime contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.247A, which increased the custodial term to be served before a prisoner serving a fixed-term sentence for terrorism offences was entitled to early release from half of the sentence to two thirds, was compatible with ECHR art.5, art.7 and art.14.
QBD (Admin) (Kerr J)
18 June 2020
A district judge had not erred in ordering the extradition of a Romanian national under a conviction European arrest warrant where he knew that criminal proceedings against him had started before he left Romania, he became a fugitive upon his conviction and any delay between the date of the offences and his conviction had not been inordinately long.
QBD (Chamberlain J)
17 June 2020
The continued detention of a person held on suspicion of having committed an offence was in principle capable of being justified under ECHR art.5(1)(c) and (3) on the basis that it was necessary for his own protection. Accordingly, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.38(1)(b)(ii) was not incompatible with art.5.
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.
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.
QBD (Admin) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Holgate J)
1 May 2020
A magistrates’ court had been entitled to make a notification order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.97 where an individual had been convicted of rape overseas. Where a person had committed a serious sexual offence so as to be subject to indefinite notification requirements, the continuation of such requirements for a minimum of 15 years did not constitute a disproportionate interference with his ECHR art.8 rights, despite the regime being automatic.
SC (Lady Hale JSC, Lord Reed JSC, Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Carnwath JSC, Lord Hodge JSC, Lady Black JSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones JSC)
25 March 2020
It had not been lawful for the secretary of state to authorise mutual assistance to the United States to assist a criminal investigation which could lead to the prosecution of a suspected British terrorist for offences carrying the death penalty. Although there was no established common law principle which prohibited the sharing of information relevant to a criminal prosecution in a country which had not abolished the death penalty, the transfer did not meet the requirements for transfer of personal data to a third country as set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 s.73.
QBD (Admin) (Lane J)
18 March 2020
The court anonymised a requested person and her immediate family in an extradition judgment where the requested person’s daughter suffered from a serious condition such that identification would likely lead to harm to the family. However, a very good case had to be made for a person who had been convicted of a criminal offence abroad to avoid being named in English extradition proceedings.
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) (Steyn J)
10 March 2020
There was no real risk of a requested person’s ECHR art.3 rights being breached if he was extradited to Romania where further information and assurances subsequently provided by the judicial authority had addressed the relevant issues, such as the time he would be able to spend outside his cell during a quarantine period, and there was no remaining lack of clarity.