QBD (Admin) (Chamberlain J)
25 February 2020
A magistrates’ court had not erred in making a closure order in respect of the flat of an individual who was being investigated for a drugs offence, and where a police search had discovered drugs and drug-dealing paraphernalia. CPR PD 52E, which applied to appeals by way of case stated, did not contain any provision about the filing of skeleton arguments or hearing bundles. That was a lacuna, and consideration should be given to amending it to impose a general requirement for the filing of skeleton arguments, agreed hearing bundles and authorities bundles.
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.
QBD (Admin) (Stuart-Smith J)
21 November 2019
Fresh evidence submitted by a requested person did not support the conclusion that her two young children would be left homeless if she was extradited, but rather that her partner would be permitted to look after them. Accordingly, her extradition to Lithuania to face trial for the offence of possession with intent to supply class A drugs did not breach ECHR art.8.
CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Baker LJ, Green LJ)
21 November 2019
Although the principle that the welfare of the child was paramount did not apply to applications for an order for secure accommodation under the Children Act 1989 s.25, the court was not required to abdicate all responsibility for evaluating the impact of the proposed placement on the child’s welfare. The court was also obliged to consider whether the making of such an order was proportionate, that being one of the “relevant criteria” for deciding whether keeping a child in secure accommodation was justified. The court had to carry out its own evaluation of whether the order would safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, but the intensity of that evaluation would depend on the facts of the case.
QBD (Admin) (Gross LJ, William Davis J)
3 October 2019
A local authority had not acted ultra vires when conducting a trading standards investigation into energy brokers suspected of involvement in mis-selling. It had power to do so under the Localism Act 2011 s.1 and/or the Local Government Act 1972 s.101 and s.111. It did not have to satisfy the expediency test in s.222(1) of the 1972 Act since that test only applied to decisions to prosecute or appear in legal proceedings, and did not encompass investigations or court applications for investigatory purposes.
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Andrew McFarlane PFD, Simon LJ, Nicola Davies LJ)
31 July 2019
A judge in care proceedings in which the parents were suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity had correctly followed the approach in C (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure), Re  Fam. 76 in making an order directing the local authority to disclose to the police a copy of the parents’ position statements and statements of evidence. The Re C approach remained fit for purpose and did not require revision.
DC (Flaux LJ, Andrews J)
28 February 2019
The default six-month time limit between the commission of an offence and the laying of an information prescribed by the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.127 applied to offences under the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. Although the Regulations were provided for by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 s.12, and s.31 of the 2006 Act expressly allowed an extended time limit concerning offences under that Act, there was no such express reference concerning offences under the Regulations. The default 1980 Act time limit could not be disapplied without an express enactment.
Fam Div (Theis J)
25 February 2019
A posting on a social media page showing a hyperlink was not, without more, “publication” of the content linked to. A posting linking to a judgment made in care proceedings therefore did not breach a court order prohibiting publication of court papers in those proceedings.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Cutts J, Judge Goldstone QC)
5 February 2019
Residents liable to pay council tax were not under any general legal duty to notify the local authority of their continuing residence in the property in question. A judge had therefore been correct to make a terminating ruling where an individual had been charged under the Fraud Act 2006 s.3 with dishonestly failing to disclose that she was living at a property so as to avoid paying council tax in respect of it.
QBD (Admin) (Lewis J)
12 December 2018
The court refused permission for judicial review of a local authority’s decision that it did not owe a housing duty to a claimant who had forged the medical evidence which had formed the basis of his housing application. The claim was certified as totally without merit, and because the local authority had put to great expense to establish that the claimant had consistently lied, he was ordered to pay its costs.