ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[2019] EWCA Civ 1841

[2019] EWCA Civ 1841
CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, Simler LJ)
31 October 2019

The High Court’s decision refusing permission to apply for judicial review in proceedings relating to a murder conviction was “a judgment…in a criminal cause or matter” within the meaning of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18(1)(a), restricting the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to consider the appeal. There was no basis for concluding that the denial of a right of appeal in those circumstances amounted to an unjustified denial of the appellant’s right of access to justice.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1568

[2019] EWCA Crim 1568
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Warby J, Edis J)
17 September 2019

A challenge, by way of judicial review, by a young offender convicted of the murder and rape of a 14-year-old girl, to an excepting direction which discharged a reporting restriction order imposed under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.45(3), was refused.

CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Green LJ)
11 September 2019

In refusing a writ of habeas corpus for a prisoner’s release from detention, the Court of Appeal held, applying Corke, Re [1954] 1 W.L.R. 899, that where a person had been convicted by a competent court of summary jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy was to appeal against conviction and not by way of application for habeas corpus.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1533

[2019] EWCA Crim 1533
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Jeremy Baker J, Freedman J)
28 August 2019

The Court of Appeal considered the consequences of its earlier decision to quash an appellant’s conviction for causing criminal damage when that offence had not fallen under its jurisdiction in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.1. It withdrew part of its earlier decision and deployed an unusual route to impose an absolute discharge on the appellant instead.

[2019] EWHC 2026 (QB)

[2019] EWHC 2026 (QB)
DC (Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Nicklin J)
29 July 2019

Changes to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 had not ousted the court’s jurisdiction, arising from Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] Fam. 430, to order lifetime anonymity for a child offender after their 18th birthday in exceptional cases. It was necessary to make such order for an offender who had pleaded guilty to inciting terrorism overseas when he was 14 years old. Identifying him in public would fundamentally undermine his rehabilitation and leave him very vulnerable to exploitation and potential re-radicalisation, in particular due to his autism.

DC (Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Warby J)
11 July 2019

Committal to prison for six months was the appropriate penalty for an offender who had committed a contempt of court by breaching a reporting restriction order by filming the defendants in a sexual exploitation trial as they arrived at court and live streaming the resulting video over the internet.

[2019] NICA 33

[2019] NICA 33
CA (NI) (Stephens LJ, Deeny LJ, Treacy LJ)
7 June 2019

It was not appropriate to give media organisations leave to appeal against reporting restriction orders imposed in relation to the trial of a mentally disordered offender.

[2019] EWCA Civ 874

[2019] EWCA Civ 874
CA (Civ Div) (Davis LJ, Irwin LJ)
21 May 2019

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against a refusal of permission to apply for judicial review; by reason of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18(1) it had no jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal because the decision under challenge was in a criminal cause or matter. The court made general observations with regard to appeals from judgments in criminal causes or matters.

[2019] EWHC 1100 (Admin)

[2019] EWHC 1100 (Admin)
DC (Irwin LJ, Jay J)
8 May 2019

A fresh inquest was ordered under the Coroners Act 1988 s.13(1)(b) into the death of a 14-year-old child in 1966, as new evidence was available which rendered a further inquest necessary and desirable in the interests of justice.

[2019] EWHC 1237 (Ch)

[2019] EWHC 1237 (Ch)
Ch D (Marcus Smith J)
29 April 2019

A contemnor was released one-and-a-half months into her six-month term of imprisonment of which she was to serve half, as she had received sufficient punishment for her breaches of freezing orders and it was in the interests of justice to discharge her early. If the prison service failed to attest an application to discharge of a contemnor without good reason and provided no explanation for that failure, it should expect to find itself joined to proceedings and court orders made against it.

Scroll to top