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.
QBD (Admin) (Nicol J)
25 February 2020
The mental condition of a man who claimed to have been the victim of trafficking was not such as to render his extradition to the Czech Republic oppressive or a disproportionate interference with his right to private or family life under ECHR art.8.
Ch D (NI) (Simpson J)
21 February 2020
The court granted a possession order in relation to a property which had been paid for using money derived from unlawful conduct. The order did not breach the defendants’ rights under ECHR art.8, art.14 or Protocol 1 art.1. However, it was appropriate to stay the enforcement of the order for a period of six months so that the defendants’ children could remain in the property whilst taking important exams.
DC (Dingemans LJ, Spencer J)
6 February 2020
Although accused of serious crimes, two requested persons were discharged from extradition proceedings after India had failed to provide assurances that their potential life sentences would be reducible until 45 minutes before judgment was due to be handed down. India had known that assurances were required and should have indicated to the judge that it intended to seek them, so that a timetable could be prepared.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Foster J)
28 January 2020
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67(3), which protected against voyeurism in the form of the recording of another person doing a private act, was not limited to protecting the privacy of a complainant from secret filming by someone who was not present during the private act in question. A participant to certain activity could be guilty of a s.67(3) offence if they secretly recorded what was otherwise a lawful event in which they had participated.