QBD (Admin) (Cutts J)
10 July 2020
A district judge had not erred in refusing to issue a summons against the former Prime Minister Tony Blair for administering a noxious substance contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.23. The court had no territorial jurisdiction as the “mischief” complained of, namely the use of Depleted Uraniam bullets, took place in Iraq.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde J, Andrews J, Martin Spencer J)
21 May 2020
The Court of Appeal clarified the circumstances in which a sexual harm prevention order could be varied by a Crown Court. Where the Crown Court was merely sentencing an offender for breach of such an order, it did not have the power to vary the order or impose a fresh order unless a proper application had been made by the prescribed person, and to the prescribed court, as set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.103E.
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.
SC (Lady Hale PSC, Lord Wilson JSC, Lord Carnwath JSC, Lord Lloyd-Jones JSC, Lord Sales JSC)
19 February 2020
The Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against a decision of the Divisional Court of Northern Ireland concerning the lawfulness of a life prisoner’s release on licence. The proceedings did not constitute a “criminal cause or matter” for the purposes of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 s.41(1); the proper avenue of appeal was to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
28 January 2020
The Crown Court had no jurisdiction to extend the 21-day time limit specified in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.111 to state a case following an individual’s conviction in the magistrates’ court but before they were sentenced in the Crown Court. The time limit began on the day of an offender’s conviction; the reference in s.111(3) to it beginning the day that an offender was sentenced meant where the magistrates’ court had retained the matter for sentence.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, William Davis J, Johnson J)
12 December 2019
On an ordinary reading of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.1(1), an appellate court had jurisdiction to entertain a defendant’s appeal against conviction on one count on an indictment, even though it had previously determined, on its merits, an appeal by the defendant against a conviction on another count on the same indictment. However, that jurisdiction was to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, Simler LJ)
31 October 2019
The High Court’s decision refusing permission to apply for judicial review in proceedings relating to a murder conviction was “a judgment…in a criminal cause or matter” within the meaning of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18(1)(a), restricting the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to consider the appeal. There was no basis for concluding that the denial of a right of appeal in those circumstances amounted to an unjustified denial of the appellant’s right of access to justice.
CA (Crim Div) (Hickinbottom LJ, Cutts J, Sir Roderick Evans)
17 October 2019
A sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment was just and proportionate following guilty pleas to 13 historic offences of indecent assault of a girl under 16 years where the victims were the offender’s step-daughter and adopted daughter who had been abused in their beds at night.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Warby J, Edis J)
17 September 2019
A challenge, by way of judicial review, by a young offender convicted of the murder and rape of a 14-year-old girl, to an excepting direction which discharged a reporting restriction order imposed under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.45(3), was refused.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Edis J, Butcher J)
24 July 2019
A judge had erred in making a wasted costs order against a solicitor who had made a request to the court for information raised in her former client’s contempt of court proceedings, on the basis that it might assist in proceedings contemplated by a new client. In making her request, the solicitor was not acting on behalf of a party to criminal proceedings, and such requests could not be regarded as initiating “criminal proceedings”.