CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Fraser J, Judge Michael Chambers QC)
24 July 2020
A recorder had erred in principle in withholding credit for a guilty plea when imposing the maximum fine available for a failure to comply with the requirements of a planning enforcement notice. The fact that the recorder would have imposed a heavier fine if permitted was irrelevant. However, the recorder was justified in making a confiscation order in the sum of the gross rental income obtained as a result of the criminal conduct inherent in the breach of the notice requirements.
DC (Flaux LJ, Elisabeth Laing J)
29 June 2020
An offence under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 s.67 was complete when a police constable or authorised person reasonably believed that an individual was drinking alcohol, and had a container for alcohol, in breach of a public spaces protection order. Once that reasonable belief had been established, it did not matter that the person later showed that there was no alcohol present.
DC (Hickinbottom LJ, Andrews J)
19 March 2020
On the proper construction of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 s.43, there was no power to issue a community protection notice in the name of a parent concerning the anti-social behaviour conduct of their child.
DC (Fulford LJ, Elisabeth Laing J)
18 March 2020
The power to request information under the Environment Act 1995 s.108(4)(j) could not be exercised independently from the power to enter premises.
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.