CIVIL PROCEDURE

[2020] EWHC 200 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 200 (Admin)
DC (Dingemans LJ, Spencer J)
6 February 2020

Although accused of serious crimes, two requested persons were discharged from extradition proceedings after India had failed to provide assurances that their potential life sentences would be reducible until 45 minutes before judgment was due to be handed down. India had known that assurances were required and should have indicated to the judge that it intended to seek them, so that a timetable could be prepared.

[2020] EWCA Civ 108
[2020] EWCA Civ 108
CA (Civ Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Davis LJ, Simon LJ)
5 February 2020

In refusing to discharge an unexplained wealth order made against a non-EEA national, the Court of Appeal examined the statutory test for identifying a “politically exposed person” within the meaning of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.362B(4)(a) and confirmed that a broad approach was to be taken to assessing whether an entity was a “state-owned enterprise” for the purposes of Directive 2015/849 art.3(9)(g). It confirmed that neither the privilege against self-incrimination nor spousal privilege applied to the unexplained wealth order procedure.

DC (Leggatt LJ, May J)
5 February 2020

A 61-year-old man who had posted on his Facebook page photographs purporting to be of the convicted murderers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, in breach of a worldwide injunction prohibiting the publication of their identity, was given a sentence of four months’ imprisonment suspended for two years.

QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
28 January 2020

The Crown Court had no jurisdiction to extend the 21-day time limit specified in the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.111 to state a case following an individual’s conviction in the magistrates’ court but before they were sentenced in the Crown Court. The time limit began on the day of an offender’s conviction; the reference in s.111(3) to it beginning the day that an offender was sentenced meant where the magistrates’ court had retained the matter for sentence.

[2020] EWCA Civ 29
[2020] EWCA Civ 29
CA (Civ Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Holroyde LJ, Nicola Davies LJ)
23 January 2020

A prison governor’s decision that a category A prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence should attend the hearing of a civil claim by video link, rather than in person, did not breach his right to a fair trial under ECHR art.6. Nor had the decision-maker unlawfully fettered her discretion in refusing the prisoner’s request to be produced physically at the hearing of his claim. However, the decision had been made on the basis of a fundamental misunderstanding of an important fact, and would have to be retaken in the light of up-to-date information.

[2020] EWCA Civ 9
[2020] EWCA Civ 9
CA (Civ Div) (Underhill LJ, David Richards LJ, Leggatt LJ)
23 January 2020

The fact that an injunction against “persons unknown” referred to the requirement for an “intention” to impede lawful activities did not render the injunction insufficiently clear or certain to be enforceable by committal to prison following a breach. “Intention” did not have any special legal meaning and was not difficult for a member of the public to understand.

[2019] EWCA Civ 1721
[2019] EWCA Civ 1721
CA (Civ Div) (Moylan LJ, Peter Jackson LJ)
17 October 2019

Respondents to committal proceedings were entitled to be provided with legal representation if they wanted it, and would qualify for non-means-tested legal aid. Courts were obliged to ensure that such protection was made available, otherwise any resulting committal order might be procedurally irregular.

[2019] EWCA Civ 1574
[2019] EWCA Civ 1574
CA (Civ Div) (Green LJ)
16 September 2019

The applicant, who was appealing against his sentence after being committed to prison for contempt of court for 21 months, had not made out his case, which was based partly on alleged threats from other prisoners, for the grant of bail.

[2019] EWHC 2180 (Admin)
[2019] EWHC 2180 (Admin)
DC (Irwin LJ, Butcher J)
11 July 2019

Where a magistrates’ court made a contingent dog destruction order under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.4A(4), the order could nominate a person responsible for destroying the dog if necessary, and provide for delivery up of the dog, but those powers could equally be exercised at a later date following a complaint or breach. As contingent destruction orders were civil remedies, the court could also vary, rescind or suspend them via its powers under the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 s.63.

[2019] NIQB 67
[2019] NIQB 67
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.

Scroll to top