Belhaj and another v Director Of Public Prosecutions

Practice Hearing. The claimants' proceedings seeking judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision that there would be no prosecution for misconduct in public office associated with their alleged unlawful rendition were 'proceedings (other than proceedings in a criminal cause or matter)'. Accordingly, the Divisional Court held that there was jurisdiction to receive an application for a declaration under of the Justice and Security Act 2013.

R (on the application of Hart and others) v Crown Court at Blackfriars and another

Warrant Search warrant. The Revenue and Customs Commissioners' representation to the judge, that there had been a serious failure of co-operation as to justify a belief that the giving of notice might result in the claimants acting in a way would which prejudice the investigation, had been without a sufficient foundation, had been overstated and had not been accompanied by sufficient disclosure to enable the judge to give fair consideration to it. Accordingly, the Divisional Court quashed search warrants and declared the searches unlawful, as the judge might reasonably have refused to issue the warrants on the full and fair picture.

*Scotch Whisky Association and others v The Lord Advocate and another (Scotland)

European Union Freedom of movement. The objectives of the and the principle of minimum pricing per unit of alcohol could justify the European Union market interference under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) art36 and under the parallel principles governing wine under the common agricultural policy (CAP) as set out in TFEU art39 and EU Regulation1308-2013 (the single CMO Regulation). That minimum pricing would involve a market distortion, including of EU trade and competition, was accepted. However, the Supreme Court held that it was impossible to conclude that that could or should be regarded as outweighing the health benefits which were intended by minimum pricing.

Mishra v Colchester Magistrates' Court; Colquhoun v Stratford Magistrates' Court

Magistrates Proceedings. Magistrates' courts did not have a discretion to extend the time to state a case after the expiration of the 21 days specified in the Magistrates Courts Act1980s111(2) (MCA1980s111(2)) as the time within which an application for a case to be stated for the opinion of the High Court had to be made. The Queen's Bench Division, accordingly refused the claimants' applications for judicial review in circumstances where they had failed to file their respective applications to state a case within the 21 days stipulated in the MCA1980s111(2).

*Brown v Parole Board for Scotland and others

Human rights Right to liberty and security. Prisoners who were detained during the custodial term, or during a period ordered to be served under of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, were during that period in an analogous position to prisoners serving determinate sentences. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that, in the context of indeterminate public protection sentences, the reasoning, which had led the European Court of Human Rights to decide that art 5(1)(a) of the European Convention on Human Rights had imposed an obligation to provide the prisoner with a real opportunity for rehabilitation, was equally applicable.

*Michalak v General Medical Council and others

Employment Tribunal Jurisdiction. The availability of judicial review proceedings in respect of decisions or actions of the General Medical Council did not exclude the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal (the tribunal) by virtue of of the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court so held in upholding a decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division and remitting the respondent doctor's case.

R v R

Criminal evidence Police interview. The defendant's trial for sexual offences had been unfair and the safety of his convictions undermined by the mistaken leaving of transcripts of the complainant's police interviews in the jury room. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal, approached the difficulty by considering: (i) the defence approach to the problem; (ii) whether that had amounted to an agreement that the jury should have the transcripts during retirement; (iii) the judge's warnings and their sufficiency; and (iv) the safety of the convictions.

R v Reynolds and others

Criminal law Confiscation order. The prosecution's appeal against the valuation of benefit and the provisions of enforcement regarding confiscation orders was allowed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the judge had erred in his approach to the orders, made in relation to corruption in public sector contracting, and made findings regarding the amount that the confiscation order should come to in principle.

R (Newcastle United Football Club Ltd and others) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners and another

Tax Evasion. Search and seizure warrants, under the in connection with a criminal investigation of suspected evasion of VAT, income tax and national insurance contributions by the claimant companies involved in the activities of Newcastle United Football Club had been lawfully issued. Accordingly, the Divisional Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review, challenging the warrants on procedural and substantive grounds.

Brookman v General Medical Council

Medical practitioner Professional conduct committee. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service had proceeded to make findings which had been adverse to the appellant on allegations, misconduct, impairment of fitness to practise and sanction without having had sufficient evidence to address the concerns it had correctly identified, so that it had been able to make proper findings. Accordingly, the Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against his erasure from the register without remitter.