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.
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.
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.
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.
QBD (Jeremy Baker J)
13 June 2019
In finding that a police officer’s actions in arresting an individual had been grossly disproportionate, and amounted to an unlawful assault, a judge had failed to make clear findings under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.329(5)(a) and s.329(5)(b) regarding the officer’s honest belief in whether his actions had been necessary and whether he had intended to injure the individual.
CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Hamblen LJ)
4 April 2019
In an appeal against a deportation order upheld by the Upper Tribunal, the First-tier Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant was not a persistent offender and therefore not a “foreign criminal” for the purposes of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s.117D. Although there had been gaps in his offending, the FTT should have focused on the overall picture and recognised that the absence of offending was partly due to his imprisonment. It had also erred in regarding the appellant’s association with a criminal gang as an example of his social and cultural integration, and in describing him as a “home grown criminal” in concluding that there were significant obstacles to reintegration in his country of origin.
QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
28 March 2019
A district judge had been entitled to conclude that an offender’s extradition to Poland would not disproportionately interfere with his rights under ECHR art.8. Although he had family ties in the UK, he was a 28-year-old single man with no dependants.