Judicial Review Application for judicial review. The Divisional Court, in allowing an application for judicial review of the lawfulness of four search warrants issued by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant Revenue and Customs Commissioners, held that the warrants had been defective and that the entrance on and searches of the premises had been unlawful. However, it declined to order the return of copy documents made as the issues raised seemed to be issues properly to be considered by a Crown Court judge.
Animal Protection. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the first claimant's claim for judicial review of the decisions of a Crown Court following his conviction for eleven offences under the held that it would be wrong in principle to construe the provisions of the Act by reference to differently worded provisions of the repealed legislation. Further, that the certification by a veterinary surgeon pursuant to s18(5) of the Act had to be in writing. However, in allowing the second claimant's claim for judicial review of the decision of the Crown Court in relation to costs, it held that the court had taken an incorrect approach. Accordingly, the order for costs made against her would be quashed and the matter would be remitted for fresh consideration.
Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance on the interplay between the law relating to voluntary intoxication and the law relating to insanity or (non-insane) automatism in three cases where the defendants had, amongst other things, appealed against convictions for various offences to which they had raised insanity and-or automatism as a defence.
Immigration Detention. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to detain her in immigration detention and the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Tribunal) to refuse bail. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that there was a significant risk of the claimant absconding and it was not arguable that the Secretary of State's decision to detain the claimant had been irrational.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs and received a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment. He appealed against sentence contending that it was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the appeal holding that the aggravating features of the offence, namely, the defendant's previous convictions and the fact that he had committed the offences whilst on licence, had outweighed the defendant's points in mitigation.
Extradition Extradition hearing. The Administrative Court held that it would be oppressive to order the extradition of the appellant to Poland in circumstances where the Polish courts could have dealt with the matters that had given rise to the conviction European arrest warrant when the appellant had been before the Polish courts in 2008, and in circumstances where, after appearing before the Polish courts in 2008, a judge had granted him permission to return to the United Kingdom.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant, who had been a teacher of a boarding school, had pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual activity with a girl, the victim being a pupil of the school the defendant had worked. The defendant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for each count to be served concurrently. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the defendant's appeal against sentence holding that the sentence imposed had not been manifestly excessive.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the decisions of two district judges ordering his extradition to Poland to serve activated suspended sentences on the basis of two European arrest warrants (EAWs). The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the first EAW was not required to specify the stage reached for an offence activating the suspended sentence. With respect to the second EAW, the court held that the second district judge had not erred in finding the appellant responsible for the lapse of time or that there was no evidence of inadequate safeguards to protect the appellant while in custody in Poland.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant's extradition to Poland had been ordered for offences, including stealing telephone impulses. He appealed on the basis that the offence did not satisfy the requirement of dual criminality. The Administrative Court held that the offence was not an extradition offence, but that the appeal should be dismissed, as the other offences had satisfied the definition of 'extradition offence' in of the Extradition Act 2003.
Extradition Extradition hearing. The appellant had been implicated in a fraud upon the German revenue. He was arrested under a European arrest warrant and his extradition was sought. In the course of events, the respondent judicial authority provided additional information which appeared to infer that the appellant's involvement in the fraud had been as a result of recklessness rather than intention. At first instance the judge principally relied upon the warrant, not the additional information, and consequently ordered the appellant's extradition. The appellant appealed There was an inconsistency between the requirement for intention in the offence and the use of the word 'reckless' as appeared in the additional information. There was a doubt as to what was alleged against the appellant and therefore the requirement of dual criminality had not been met.