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.
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.
CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, David Richards LJ, Leggatt LJ)
23 January 2020
The fact that an injunction against “persons unknown” referred to the requirement for an “intention” to impede lawful activities did not render the injunction insufficiently clear or certain to be enforceable by committal to prison following a breach. “Intention” did not have any special legal meaning and was not difficult for a member of the public to understand.
CA (Civ Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Holroyde LJ, Nicola Davies LJ)
23 January 2020
A prison governor’s decision that a category A prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence should attend the hearing of a civil claim by video link, rather than in person, did not breach his right to a fair trial under ECHR art.6. Nor had the decision-maker unlawfully fettered her discretion in refusing the prisoner’s request to be produced physically at the hearing of his claim. However, the decision had been made on the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of an important fact, and would have to be retaken in the light of up-to-date information.
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Stephens LJ, McCloskey LJ)
8 January 2020
The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland gave guidance on the correct approach to sentencing for fraud and theft where an offender was in a position of trust.