CA (NI) (McCloskey LJ, O'Hara J, Huddleston J)
20 December 2019
The court considered the violent offences prevention order regime under the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 Pt 8, including the distinction between an order imposed at sentence and a free-standing order, and provided general guidance as to the relevant legal test for imposition of such an order and procedural fairness.
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.
DC (Hickinbottom LJ, Johnson J)
20 November 2019
It had been lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to add r.7(1A) to the Prison Rules 1999, which removed his own power to transfer life prisoners to open conditions if they were subject to a deportation order in respect of which they had no extant right to appeal. Treating such prisoners who, at the end of their period of detention, were inherently unlikely to resettle in UK communities, differently from other prisoners, by not affording them an opportunity to be transferred to open conditions or enjoy release on temporary licence, was not a manifestly disproportionate means of pursuing the legitimate aim of prioritising the other prisoners who were likely to resettle in UK communities.
QBD (Admin) (Steven Kovats QC)
13 November 2019
The Parole Board, in deciding to transfer a prisoner to open conditions rather than release him to an approved premises had failed to grapple with the evidence in relation to his personality disorder and the potential detriment to its management in open conditions. It had also erred in taking account of his drug and alcohol misuse when that was not a risk issue.
QBD (Admin) (Judge Cotter QC)
11 November 2019
A prisoner had not made out his challenge to a decision to recategorise him from a category D to a category C prisoner, the decision having been based on ongoing confiscation proceedings brought by HMRC and the latter’s belief that, if placed in open conditions, the prisoner might escape and seek to hide or dissipate his assets. Contrary to the prisoner’s submission, the policy on recategorisation enabled ongoing confiscation proceedings to be taken into account, and it was not necessary that a confiscation order should have been made or enforced.
QBD (Admin) (Dingemans LJ, Chamberlain J)
6 November 2019
The Extinction Rebellion Autumn Uprising which took place at multiple sites in London between 7 and 19 October 2019 and which involved gatherings of protestors engaging in “disruptive actions” to challenge police resources and pressure the state into responding to their demands for change was not a “public assembly” within the Public Order Act 1986 s.14(1). Accordingly, the senior police officer designated to coordinate the police response to the Uprising had had no power to impose a condition under that provision. The court defined “public assembly” in s.14(1).
DC (Thirlwall LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Dove J)
30 October 2019
The independent adjudicator, to whom disciplinary charges against prisoners were referred, did not have an express or implied power to refer charges to the police. The regime for discipline in prisons was intended to operate separately from the criminal justice system, except where the governor referred charges to the police or where the charges related to very serious offences.
CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Green LJ)
11 September 2019
In refusing a writ of habeas corpus for a prisoner’s release from detention, the Court of Appeal held, applying Corke, Re  1 W.L.R. 899, that where a person had been convicted by a competent court of summary jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy was to appeal against conviction and not by way of application for habeas corpus.
DC (Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Nicklin J)
29 July 2019
Changes to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 had not ousted the court’s jurisdiction, arising from Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd  Fam. 430, to order lifetime anonymity for a child offender after their 18th birthday in exceptional cases. It was necessary to make such order for an offender who had pleaded guilty to inciting terrorism overseas when he was 14 years old. Identifying him in public would fundamentally undermine his rehabilitation and leave him very vulnerable to exploitation and potential re-radicalisation, in particular due to his autism.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Choudhury J, Judge Field QC)
25 July 2019
When determining that urine could be a “noxious thing” within the meaning of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.24, the Court of Appeal provided guidance on the appropriate sentencing levels for offences of assault committed by serving prisoners on prison officers and other prison employees by the throwing and/or smearing of urine and/or faeces.