PROPORTIONALITY

QBD (Admin) (Kerr J)
18 June 2020

A district judge had not erred in ordering the extradition of a Romanian national under a conviction European arrest warrant where he knew that criminal proceedings against him had started before he left Romania, he became a fugitive upon his conviction and any delay between the date of the offences and his conviction had not been inordinately long.

[2020] UKPC 15
[2020] UKPC 15
PC (Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Sales)
8 June 2020

The court examined the operation of the regime in the Money Laundering (Prevention) Act 1996 (Antigua and Barbuda) Pt IV headed “Freezing and Forfeiture of Assets in Relation to Money Laundering” and the regime in Pt IVB headed “Civil Forfeiture”. It analysed the effect of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda on those regimes. The Act’s freeze order and civil forfeiture provisions were intended to operate in combination as an integrated regime and they did so in the civil rather than the criminal sphere. The practical effect of a finding that a defendant had engaged in money laundering was to place the burden on them to show to the civil standard that any property they owned had been acquired by legitimate means and sources of funding. That was reasonable and did not amount to charging the defendant with a criminal offence within the meaning of section 15 of the Constitution. The regime was proportionate and compatible with the Constitution.

[2020] EWHC 1053 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 1053 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Holgate J)
1 May 2020

A magistrates’ court had been entitled to make a notification order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.97 where an individual had been convicted of rape overseas. Where a person had committed a serious sexual offence so as to be subject to indefinite notification requirements, the continuation of such requirements for a minimum of 15 years did not constitute a disproportionate interference with his ECHR art.8 rights, despite the regime being automatic.

[2020] EWHC 412 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 412 (Admin)
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) (Farbey J)
28 November 2019

A requested person’s extradition to Poland for fraud was disproportionate, oppressive due to the passage of time, and breached ECHR art.8. The district judge’s reasoning regarding the fact that the individual was not a fugitive had been unclear, he had erred in finding that the individual had previous convictions for fraud, and he had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 19 years had passed since the offending.

[2019] EWCA Civ 2025
[2019] EWCA Civ 2025
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.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1897
[2019] EWCA Crim 1897
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
25 October 2019

Where a confiscation order had been made against a defendant who had been convicted of offences involving the improper retention of pension contributions, it was not disproportionate to require her to pay the full amount of the benefit obtained. Although she might have received the benefit of the pension contributions in any event, it was not open to her to argue that she would or might have acquired valuable rights had she acted honestly.

QBD (Admin) (Holman J)
10 October 2019

It was disproportionate to extradite an individual to Hungary for allegedly stealing £400 worth of goods from a neighbour where seven-and-a-half years had passed since the alleged offence had taken place, and the appellant had been questioned in Hungary about the burglary three years earlier but the authorities had allowed him to return to the UK.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1398
[2019] EWCA Crim 1398
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Edis J, Butcher J)
1 August 2019

A judge had erred in imposing a wasted costs order on a defence barrister after discharging the jury following the barrister’s closing speech. In front of the jury, the barrister had inappropriately criticised the procedure by which questions for young and vulnerable witnesses were formulated in advance, and had also strayed beyond the bounds of appropriate comment in relation to the complainant’s sexual behaviour. However, his comments could have been dealt with in the judge’s summing up and did not call for the discharge of the jury.

CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Popplewell J, Judge Marson QC)
18 July 2019

The court refused to vary a confiscation order imposed following an individual’s guilty plea to breach of an enforcement notice by illegally renting out three bedsits. The rental income had been a benefit received as a result of criminal conduct for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.76. It was not open to the applicant to argue that as he could have lawfully received a benefit from the property, that amount should be deducted from the confiscation order.

Scroll to top