s.3

[2017] EWHC 1967 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 1967 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Judge Saini QC)
28 July 2017

The court set out the principles of procedural fairness standards that applied when the secretary of state considered applications from life prisoners for release on compassionate grounds under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 s.30.

[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] EWCA Crim 712
[2016] EWCA Crim 712
CA (Crim Div) (Burnett LJ, Saunders J, Garnham J)
15 April 2016

Committal for sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.6 where committal under s.3 might have been expected meant that the Crown Court’s sentencing jurisdiction was limited to that of the magistrates’ court unless it could be established that there had been a mistake in recording the statutory basis for committal. In the event of a mistake, the Crown Court could rely on R. v Ayhan (Murat) [2011] EWCA Crim 3184, [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1775 to impose the sentence it thought fit.

[2016] EWCA Crim 569
[2016] EWCA Crim 569
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Jeremy Baker J, Judge Bourne-Arton QC)
13 April 2016

The court considered the degree of particularity required in a count alleging an offence of trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.63(1)

[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 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] EWHC 3824 (Ch)
[2015] EWHC 3824 (Ch)
CC (Manchester) (Judge Hodge QC)
26 November 2015

In obiter comments, the court gave guidance as to the exercise of discretion in granting a forfeiture order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.298 in relation to cash seized by police which appeared to have vested in a trustee in bankruptcy. The court also clarified that in those circumstances it did not need to grant permission for proceedings seeking a forfeiture order.

[2015] EWHC 3245 (Admin)
[2015] EWHC 3245 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Leggatt J)
16 November 2015

Even though a prisoner had not been released 18 months after the Parole Board had given a direction which was intended to result in his release on licence, the delay had not been caused by any breach of statutory duty or discrimination.

[2015] UKSC 54
[2015] UKSC 54
SC (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lady Hale DPSC, Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Reed JSC, Lord Hodge JSC)
29 July 2015

Decisions to continue to segregate two prisoners had been unlawful, as they had not been authorised by the secretary of state and were unfair at common law. Any purported performance of his function under the Prison Rules 1999 r.45(2) by a governor or other prison officer could not be treated as performance by him.

[2015] NICA 8
[2015] NICA 8
CA (NI) (Coghlin LJ, Horner J, Maguire J)
27 February 2015

There was no requirement under the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 s.7 to demonstrate the relevance to an investigation of material sought under an International Letter of Request.

Scroll to top