Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences of unlawful wounding, attempted robbery and possessing a prohibited weapon, and he was sentenced to a total term imposed was nine years' imprisonment. In allowing the defendant's appeal against sentence in part, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that insufficient account had been taken of the basis of plea, and that insufficient weight had been given to the genuine remorse of the defendant and his willingness to cooperate with the police. The sentence was reduced to seven-and-a-half years' imprisonment.
Extradition Discharge of fugitive. The respondent sought the extradition of the appellant, a British citizen, to Argentina to face charges in connection with a drug offence. The judge sent the case to the Secretary of State for a decision as to whether the appellant should be extradited. The appellant appealed. In dismissing the appeal, the Queen's Bench Division held that the mere fact that the appellant could not make an application for bail in Argentina, which would be very likely to be rejected on its merits anyway, did not constitute, of itself, a flagrant breach of art 5(3) of the Convention. Further, there the court was not persuaded that the judge had erred in his decision.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant was sentenced in connection with offences, including battery, committed against his mother. He was sentenced to short terms of imprisonment, and also made the subject of a restraining order. Having breached the order, he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and ordered to serve six months of an activated seven month suspended sentence, to run consecutively to the 12-month term imposed for breaching the restraining order. In allowing the defendant's appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a further short term of imprisonment was required to reflect the fact of a deliberate breach of the restraining order. The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was reduced to 3 months' imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the 6 months' imprisonment.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had pleaded guilty to three counts of thefts of catalytic converters from Ford motor vehicles. He received sentences of 16 months' imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently. He appealed against sentence contending that it was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the defendant's appeal, stating that the consideration of the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence, together with the fact that it would not have given full credit for the defendant's relatively late guilty plea, meant that the sentence imposed had not been manifestly excessive.
Criminal law Appeal. The defendant had been convicted of the murder of his girlfriend after the use of covert surveillance provided evidence of significant admissions made by the defendant of his responsibility for her death. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years. He appealed against conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed both appeals rejecting the defendant's submissions that the covert surveillance evidence should not have been admitted into evidence at the trial and that the minimum term of the sentence had been imposed unjustifiably.
Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. In the context of criminal proceedings brought against a mother for benefit fraud, the Family Division held that at that stage in the proceedings it was necessary and proportionate that there was no reporting of any information which identified family members or the family name in order to give effect to the rights of the children under art8 of the European Convention.
Sentence Confiscation order. The defendant had pleaded guilty to a money laundering connected with frauds on a bank. The loss to the bank from the fraud had been 64,086.76 (the loss). A confiscation order was made, pursuant to the which included the full amount of the loss. A compensation order was subsequently made, also for the full amount of the loss. The defendant appealed against the confiscation order contending that it was disproportionate. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that if within 28 days of the date of the judgment the defendant repaid to the bank the sum of 64,086.76, together with the interest properly payable upon it, then the appeal would be allowed to the extent of reducing the confiscation order by 64,086.76. If the defendant did not pay that sum within 28 days the appeal would be dismissed.
Extradition Extradition hearing. The appellant, a United Kingdom citizen, had appeared before the Crown Court in July 2011 on an indictment containing one count of conspiracy to supply cannabis and one count of conspiracy to supply amphetamine, to the first of which he pleaded guilty and in respect of the second of which no evidence was offered resulting in a not guilty verdict being entered. Following a subsequent conviction in his absence by the respondent French court of offences of conspiracy, drug trafficking and money laundering, he was sentenced to a term of seven years' imprisonment. The appellant's extradition was sought by the respondent court in order to serve that term. In January 2013, a district judge, having rejected the appellant's argument based on double jeopardy, ordered his extradition on the conspiracy allegation and the money laundering offences only. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that on the facts, like the district judge, it was unable to accept that there was any basis upon which the appellant's extradition should be prevented on the grounds of double jeopardy.
Education School attendance. The respondent mother was charged with failing to make her fifteen-year-old daughter, M, attend school regularly. At trial, the magistrates' court found, amongst other things, that it was M's 'chaotic lifestyle' which had led her not to attend school and that that amounted to an 'unavoidable cause' within the meaning of s444(2A) of the . Accordingly, the respondent was acquitted. The appellant authority appealed by way of case stated against the decision. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the magistrates' court had been wrong in law to find that M's 'chaotic lifestyle' had amounted to an 'unavoidable cause' and that the respondent ought to have been convicted of an offence. Accordingly, the case would be remitted to the magistrates' court with a direction that the respondent be convicted of a lesser offence pursuant to s444(1) of the Act.
Magistrates Adjournment. The claimant challenged the decision of the Ipswich Magistrates Court not to adjourn a trial after the Crown Prosecution Service had wrongly advised prosecution witnesses to attend in the afternoon rather than the morning. The claimant contended that the decision not to adjourn the case was unreasonable in a Wednesbury sense. The Administrative Court found that, in the circumstances of the case, the Justices had been entitled to refuse the adjournment and the application for judicial review was dismissed.