QBD (NI) (Colton J)
7 July 2017
A prisoner had not suffered procedural unfairness where the prison governor upgraded his security category and status based on information that the prisoner was potentially involved in trafficking illegal substances and products into the prison. Although the governor had not fully disclosed the reasons for his decision, such non-disclosure could be justified on the basis of protecting sources of information, intelligence methods and the integrity of an ongoing investigation, and was statutorily recognised by the Data Protection Act 1998 s.29.
CA (Civ Div) (Jackson LJ, McCombe LJ)
28 October 2016
The detention of a young offender for an additional 11 days after the expiry of his sentence had not breached his rights under ECHR art.5(1). Although the award of additional days had been quashed after the days had been served, it had been imposed in accordance with a judicial procedure prescribed by law and had remained lawful until the date of its quashing.
QBD (Admin) (Gross LJ, Andrews J)
12 October 2016
The court reiterated that there was a “very high hurdle” to overcome when seeking to challenge a decision of investigators of the Serious Fraud Office. While none of the authorities precluded a challenge, they lent no encouragement to the bringing of any such challenge.
CA (Crim Div) (Hamblen LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Wait)
20 June 2016
Offenders could not avoid confiscation proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.6 by leaving the country after the proceedings were initiated and claiming to be an absconder within s.6(8) when determination of the issues began. Confiscation proceedings under s.6 commenced from the time that the court agreed with the CPS that it was appropriate to proceed under that section, not when the court embarked on a determinative hearing.
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)
Crown Ct (Southwark) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD)
30 November 2015
The court made a preliminary declaration under the Crime and Courts Act 2013 Sch.17 Pt 1 para.7(1) that a proposed deferred prosecution agreement between the Serious Fraud Office and a bank that had failed to prevent bribery contrary to the Bribery Act 2010 s.7(1) was likely to be in the interests of justice and that its terms were fair, reasonable and proportionate.
CA (Crim Div) (Lloyd Jones LJ, Spencer J, Judge Rees)
30 July 2015
The Crown’s rejection of a defendant’s guilty plea to an alternative offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.20, prior to offering no evidence at trial on the substantive s.18 count on the indictment, rendered a purported conviction for the s.20 offence a nullity. A writ of venire de novo was issued as the trial court had proceeded on the basis of a fundamental error regarding the plea entered, resulting in a sentence being imposed where there had been no valid conviction.
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.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Edis J, Picken J)
17 July 2015
A total sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment was increased to 20 years where a judge had been wrongly advised that his sentencing powers in relation to offences of buggery committed when the offender was under 18 were limited to 12 months’ imprisonment.
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.