IPT (Singh LJ, Lord Boyd of Duncansby, Sir Richard McLaughlin, Charles Flint QC, Graham Zellick QC)
20 December 2019
On a proper interpretation of the Security Service Act 1989, the UK Security Service’s policy on agent participation in criminality, and the practices underlying it, were lawful and did not contravene the ECHR.
QBD (Admin) (Kerr J)
15 November 2019
A government policy relating to the identification of victims of human trafficking, pursuant to the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 and Directive 2011/36 art.11(4), was unlawful where it required that a referral for reconsideration of a negative decision could only be made by a specific “first responder” or “support provider”. That policy entailed an abdication of the state’s responsibility to perform the identification duty in cases where a negative decision had to be reconsidered in the light of relevant new material, and amounted to an unlawful fetter on the discretion to reopen decisions.
DC (Thirlwall LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Dove J)
30 October 2019
The independent adjudicator, to whom disciplinary charges against prisoners were referred, did not have an express or implied power to refer charges to the police. The regime for discipline in prisons was intended to operate separately from the criminal justice system, except where the governor referred charges to the police or where the charges related to very serious offences.
 UKUT 262 (AAC)
UT (AAC) (Judge Mitchell)
3 September 2019
For the purposes of the qualified exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.30, in respect of information relating to investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities, competing public interests were to be assessed according to the circumstances as they stood when the public authority refused a request for information.
QBD (Admin) (Gross LJ, Popplewell J)
30 July 2019
The Secretary of State for Justice had lawfully applied a policy regarding which of his decisions to refuse compensation for a miscarriage of justice he would review after the Supreme Court expanded the scope of miscarriage of justice in R. (on the application of Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice  UKSC 18. A claimant who had had an agreement with the Ministry of Justice that she would lodge her claim within 28 days of the Adams decision, but who had failed to do so, had not been entitled to a review.
DC (Nicola Davies LJ, Farbey J)
10 July 2019
In confirming a CPS decision not to prosecute a police officer for causing death by dangerous and/or careless driving, after a moped driver was killed in a pursuit, the reviewing lawyer had failed to take into account important evidence, and had taken too narrow a view regarding whether the officer’s driving early on in the pursuit could have contributed to the moped driver’s later actions.
QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
5 June 2019
The correct construction of the words “the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week” in the Abortion Act 1967 s.1(1)(a) was that a woman would have exceeded her 24th week of pregnancy from midnight on the expiration of her 24th week.
QBD (NI) (Treacy LJ)
24 May 2019
A school principal’s request to the police that a police constable working at his school should be removed from his duties because of an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable young woman was not a “complaint” for the purposes of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 which should have been referred to the Police Ombudsman. Accordingly, the police service’s failure to refer the matter to the Ombudsman did not vitiate the subsequent disciplinary proceedings which resulted in his dismissal. In obiter comments, the court set out considerations which should inform a police force’s determination of whether a communication that had been made to it constituted “a complaint about the police force” under the Act.
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.
QBD (Admin) (Simon LJ, Farbey J)
10 May 2019
The Criminal Cases Review Commission’s refusal to refer a murder conviction to the Court of Appeal in the light of fresh evidence was not unreasonable or unlawful. Even if that evidence had been accepted, there was no real possibility that the Court of Appeal would quash the conviction. The court stated obiter that the commission should be given an opportunity to make representations at an oral hearing before permission was given to bring judicial review proceedings against it.