European Union Money laundering. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 22(2) of Council Directive (EC) 2005-60 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing).The request had been made in proceedings between Jyske Bank Gibraltar Ltd (Jyske), a credit institution situated in Gibraltar operating in Spain under the rules on the freedom to provide services, and the Administracin del Estado concerning the decision of the Spanish Council of Ministers, which had rejected the application for review brought against the decision of that Council of Ministers, imposing on Jyske two financial penalties for a total amount of 1,700,000 and two public reprimands following a refusal or lack of diligence to provide the information requested by the executive service for the prevention of money laundering.
Criminal law Autrefois acquit. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the Crown's appeal and gave guidance on the plea of autrefois acquit.
Food and drugs Food hygiene. The claimant company operated a food business at a pub. Following the carrying out of a routine food hygiene inspection by the respondent authority, during which contraventions of the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) were found and the kitchen was found to require deep cleaning, the authority decided to prosecute the claimant, which applied to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process. The district judge refused the application and the claimant challenged that decision by way of judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the totality of the evidence, it was clear that the authority had fully complied with its Environmental Protection Enforcement Policy and there had been clear, strong evidence of a serious breach of the Regulations by the claimant which had justified prosecution.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant was ordered to be extradited to India to face charges for terrorism. He appealed on grounds including that the evidence of his co-defendants relied on by India for extradition would be inadmissible at his trial and that extradition would breach his human rights. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the evidence of his co-defendants was admissible for the purposes of extradition, although not in the Indian prosecution. It further held that his rights to liberty, security and a fair trial, and the prohibition of torture would not be infringed by the appellant's extradition.
Immigration Deportation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a finding that, whilst part of the period of the claimant asylum seeker's detention had been unlawful because the United Kingdom Border Agency had failed to follow departmental policy to consult the Office of the Children's Champion, the claimant had only been entitled to nominal damages because he would have been detained in any event due to the very high risk of him absconding.
Sentence Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, ruled on a number of appeals against sentence following the defendants pleading guilty to terrorism offences. In all but one of the appeals, the sentences were reduced.
Extradition Extradition hearing. The appellant judicial authority issued a European arrest warrant seeking the extradition of the respondent to serve a sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment. The district judge held that the warrant was void as it did not satisfy the requirements of s2 of the . The Administrative Court dismissed the judicial authority's appeal.
Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed a defendant's appeal against conviction for dishonestly making false representations contrary to s2 of the in respect of a motor insurance claim, in circumstances where the defendant criticised evidence that had been admitted, the form of the indictment and the prosecution's cross examination. The Court rejected the defendant's contention that the conviction was unsafe.
Sentence Confiscation order. The claimant had been convicted of conspiracy to supply cannabis and had been made subject to a confiscation order in the sum of approximately 627,553 on the basis that he had sufficient assets to meet the order, namely a house valued at approximately 900,000. The claimant having missed the deadline for payment of the order, the magistrates' court refused an application for an adjournment and made a warrant of commitment. In dismissing the claimant's claim for judicial review of the decision to refuse the adjournment and to issue a warrant of commitment, the Administrative Court held that the claimant had not demonstrated that the justices had erred in their approach and that the claimant's submissions did not seem to have any substance.
Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division provided detailed guidance on victim personal statements and family impact statements in circumstances where three defendants had unsuccessfully appealed either against conviction or sentence for a range of offences where the issue of the victim personal statements and family impact statements were raised.