s.11

[2017] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 1892 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Garnham J)
11 July 2017

A district judge had not erred in concluding pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003 s.20 that a requested person who had been convicted of offences in his absence had deliberately absented himself from his trial. She had been entitled to conclude, in the circumstances, that the requested person had gone to considerable lengths to avoid the service of proceedings and that his conduct amounted to a manifest lack of diligence.

[2017] EWHC 1650 (QB)
[2017] EWHC 1650 (QB)
QBD (Warby J)
7 July 2017

A mother failed to establish that a police detective had made a slanderous statement about her while investigating her allegations that her child had been sexually abused by a family member. Although the detective had told the child’s social worker that the mother had lied during a conversation with him, the transfer of that statement onto the child’s medical notes was not likely to cause the mother any reputational harm of the serious nature required by the Defamation Act 2013 s.1. In any event, the statement was protected by qualified privilege.

[2017] EWHC 513 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 513 (Admin)
DC (Elias LJ, Holroyde J)
16 March 2017

It was not inherently and necessarily unfair, so as to constitute an abuse of process, for an international criminal to face prosecution in more than one state. If, on a proper analysis of the facts, there was no double criminality, and no agreement between the states concerned that there should be one prosecution in relation to all the criminality, then there was no reason in principle to view a second prosecution, by a different state, as necessarily unfair.

[2017] EWHC 410 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 410 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Morris J)
20 February 2017

The claim of a prisoner detained in a hospital that the Lord Chancellor’s powers under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 were to be interpreted so as to give effect to a right to free legal representation by a lawyer of his choice in tribunal proceedings under ECHR art.5(4), art.6 or art.8 was unarguable.

[2016] EWHC 3002 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 3002 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Holroyde J)
25 November 2016

A district judge had not been permitted, on the evidence before her, to conclude that the extradition of an individual to Italy was not barred under the Extradition Act 2003 s.12A. However, had she been able to consider the subsequent decision in Kandola v Germany [2015] EWHC 619 (Admin), her route would have been different but her decision would have been the same.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1617
[2016] EWCA Crim 1617
CA (Civ Div) (Davis LJ, Birss J, Judge Rook QC)
1 November 2016

Offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 s.92 extended not just to counterfeit goods but also to “grey goods”, namely goods where the trade mark had been affixed with the proprietor’s consent, but where the proprietor had not consented to their sale, distribution or possession by others.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1564
[2016] EWCA Crim 1564
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Thomas LCJ, Popplewell J, Goss J)
20 October 2016

A prison officer’s conviction for misconduct in public office was upheld where he had given information to a journalist in return for payment. There had been no impropriety regarding the relevant newspapers’ voluntary disclosure to the police which had identified the officer.

[2016] EWHC 2214 (QB)
[2016] EWHC 2214 (QB)
QBD (Slade J)
9 September 2016

The court refused a mother’s application for a Norwich Pharmacal order against the police to obtain material arising from a fraud investigation involving a personal development coach who had provided counselling to her daughter. Although the mother alleged that the coach had poisoned her daughter’s mind against her, she had no cause of action against the coach. The application also failed because the police had been investigating potential criminal conduct against women counselled by the coach, not against the mother.

[2016] EWHC 2039 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 2039 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Cranston J)
5 August 2016

When a designated person appealed against an asset-freezing order under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 s.26, the Treasury had to justify the order it had made. The court concluded that designation had been justified to prevent the appellant providing financial assistance to a proscribed organisation, but the renewal of the designation was not justified when, by the time of renewal, different circumstances applied.

[2016] EWHC 1993 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 1993 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Irwin J)
29 July 2016
Scroll to top