CA (Crim Div) (Green LJ, Nicol J, Judge Walden-Smith)
3 December 2019
A restraining order that prohibited an offender from entering the town of Stevenage for 10 years was reasonable, necessary, and served the legitimate purpose of protecting the offender’s former partner from violence. Although restraining orders tended to focus upon specific roads or premises rather than whole towns, that did not mean that in an appropriate case a broader restriction might not be appropriate. The evaluation was always fact- and context-specific.
QBD (Admin) (Farbey J)
28 November 2019
A requested person’s extradition to Poland for fraud was disproportionate, oppressive due to the passage of time, and breached ECHR art.8. The district judge’s reasoning regarding the fact that the individual was not a fugitive had been unclear, he had erred in finding that the individual had previous convictions for fraud, and he had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 19 years had passed since the offending.
QBD (Admin) (Stuart-Smith J)
21 November 2019
Fresh evidence submitted by a requested person did not support the conclusion that her two young children would be left homeless if she was extradited, but rather that her partner would be permitted to look after them. Accordingly, her extradition to Lithuania to face trial for the offence of possession with intent to supply class A drugs did not breach ECHR art.8.
CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Baker LJ, Green LJ)
21 November 2019
Although the principle that the welfare of the child was paramount did not apply to applications for an order for secure accommodation under the Children Act 1989 s.25, the court was not required to abdicate all responsibility for evaluating the impact of the proposed placement on the child’s welfare. The court was also obliged to consider whether the making of such an order was proportionate, that being one of the “relevant criteria” for deciding whether keeping a child in secure accommodation was justified. The court had to carry out its own evaluation of whether the order would safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, but the intensity of that evaluation would depend on the facts of the case.
DC (Hickinbottom LJ, Johnson J)
20 November 2019
It had been lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to add r.7(1A) to the Prison Rules 1999, which removed his own power to transfer life prisoners to open conditions if they were subject to a deportation order in respect of which they had no extant right to appeal. Treating such prisoners who, at the end of their period of detention, were inherently unlikely to resettle in UK communities, differently from other prisoners, by not affording them an opportunity to be transferred to open conditions or enjoy release on temporary licence, was not a manifestly disproportionate means of pursuing the legitimate aim of prioritising the other prisoners who were likely to resettle in UK communities.
QBD (NI) (Keegan J)
14 October 2019
The court considered whether the policy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to review and retain a disruption notice breached the ECHR art.8. On analysis of the policy documentation, the retention period for the notice was 100 years or until the applicant turned 100, with no possibility of review and that breached the applicant’s Convention rights.
QBD (Admin) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Swift J)
4 September 2019
The current legal regime in the UK was adequate to ensure the appropriate and non-arbitrary use of automated facial recognition technology. A police force’s use of such technology in a pilot scheme was consistent with the requirements of human rights and data protection legislation and the public-sector equality duty.
QBD (NI) (Colton J)
9 August 2019
The police exercise of stop and search powers under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 s.21 and s.24 was lawful in its application to minors. There were sufficient safeguards, including the Code of Practice for the Exercise of Powers in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, introduced under s.34(4) of the Act, to meet the “quality of law” test for interference with the rights of minors under ECHR art.8.
DC (Rafferty LJ, Garnham J)
29 July 2019
An individual charged with offences in France, who had been permitted to return to the Netherlands before her conviction and sentence were issued, was not a fugitive under the Extradition Act 2003 s.14. She had not knowingly placed herself beyond the reach of French justice; she had already been beyond its reach. She was therefore permitted to rely on delay by France in seeking her extradition.
QBD (Judge Saggerson)
2 August 2019
A failure by police officers to recognise that a detainee who had been arrested on suspicion of driving whilst under the influence of drugs had suffered a stroke, and delay in the attendance of a forensic medical examiner, did not constitute a violation of the detainee’s rights under ECHR art.3 and art.8. The officers had neither actual nor constructive knowledge that the detainee had had a stroke or was otherwise in need of immediate medical attention, and the system devised and implemented for attendance of an FME was adequate.