s.11

[2016] EWCA Crim 1436
[2016] EWCA Crim 1436
CA (Crim Div) (Sharp LJ, William Davis J, Judge Stockdale)
22 March 2016

The Court of Appeal rejected a contention that, in order for the actus reus of an offence contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1)(a) to be made out, there had to be an invitation by a defendant to others to join him in providing practical or tangible support to a proscribed organisation. On a proper interpretation of that provision, it had to be determined whether a defendant knowingly used words which in fact invited support for that organisation. That broader interpretation was not incompatible with rights under the ECHR or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

[2016] EWHC 386 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 386 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Lloyd Jones LJ, Holroyde J)
2 March 2016

The court considered issues concerning the availability of the bar to extradition in the Extradition Act 2003 s.14 based on the passage of time in cases where the requested person had left the requesting state while subject to a suspended sentence which was subsequently activated.

[2016] EWHC 124 (Admin)
[2016] EWHC 124 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Beatson LJ, Cranston J)
28 January 2016

The court considered the requirement in the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(6)(b) for European arrest warrants to contain “particulars of conviction”, particularly where sentences for other offences had been merged into the sentence for the extradition offence. Where the total sentence seemed to be longer than the sentence which the extradition offence would attract, and where other offences had not been particularised, that was a strong indicator that the warrant would not be valid.

[2015] NICA 32
[2015] NICA 32
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Girvan LJ, Stephens J)
28 May 2015

An individual who had been absent when the suspension of his sentence was revoked could not rely on the Extradition Act 2003 s.20, as the activation of the sentence was not a new conviction.

[2015] EWHC 1283 (Admin)
[2015] EWHC 1283 (Admin)
DC (Davis LJ, Hickinbottom J)
11 May 2015

The National Crime Agency was ordered to return material seized pursuant to search warrants which were unlawful by reason of failures in the application process and defects in their execution. Although the flaws were the result of ignorance and incompetence rather than bad faith, the agency had acted with egregious disregard for the safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and ought not to benefit from the unlawful searches.

[2015] EWCA Crim 539
[2015] EWCA Crim 539
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Thomas LCJ, Cranston J, William Davis J)
26 March 2015

A jury could be assisted in a direction as to whether misconduct in a public office had been so serious as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder by referring it to the need to reach a judgment that the misconduct was worthy of condemnation, and to the requirement that the misconduct had to be judged as harming the public interest.

[2015] UKSC 9
[2015] UKSC 9
SC (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lady Hale DPSC, Lord Mance JSC, Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Toulson JSC)
4 March 2015

The retention by the police of records of an elderly and non-violent man’s participation in demonstrations organised by an extremist protest group was proportionate for the purposes of ECHR art.8. The police’s policy on the retention of data in relation to harassment cases was not unlawful.

[2015] EWHC 149 (Admin)
[2015] EWHC 149 (Admin)
DC (Aikens LJ, Edis J)
30 January 2015

An appellant’s extradition to France was not an abuse of process where a second conviction warrant had been issued following his conviction in absentia. The court would only exercise its implied abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition cases where no other bars to extradition were available, there was cogent evidence that the judicial authority had usurped the statutory regime, and the abuse of process would cause prejudice to an appellant.

[2015] EWHC 60 (QB)
[2015] EWHC 60 (QB)
QBD (Irwin J)
22 January 2015

The High Court rejected an application by the Security Service to strike out claims brought by a number of Libyans for false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office and conspiracy. The claims arose from allegations that the Security Service had withheld evidence during earlier proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the High Court concerning the claimants’ unlawful detention pending deportation, and their subjection to unlawful control and asset-freezing orders. The claimants were entitled to bring private law claims without appealing against the earlier SIAC and High Court rulings.

[2014] EWHC 4066 (Admin)
[2014] EWHC 4066 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Aikens LJ, Mitting J)
15 December 2014

It was important that the step-by-step approach envisaged in the structure of the Extradition Act 2003 Pt 1 was taken by counsel when considering what arguments were available to challenge a European arrest warrant. It was imperative on any appeal on extradition that counsel should put before the court a copy of the whole or Pt 1 of the Act, at least up to and including s.29.

Scroll to top