European Union Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation and validity of art4a(1) of Council Framework Decision2002-584-JHA (on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states), as amended by Council Framework Decision2009-299-JHA. The Court also made a ruling on the issue of whether a member state might refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the basis that art53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on grounds of infringement of the fundamental rights of the person concerned guaranteed by the national constitution. That reference had been made in proceedings between Mr Melloni and the Ministerio Fiscal concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued by Italian authorities for the execution of a prison sentence handed down by judgment in absentia against Mr Melloni.
Criminal law Intoxication as a defence. The defendant was convicted of murder. At the time of the offence the defendant had been drunk and, at trial, he raised the defence that he had lost control at the relevant time. He appealed against conviction contending that the judge had erred in his directions about how the jury should approach the defendant's loss of control defence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been correct in the way he had directed the jury.
Sentence Imprisonment. The two defendants had been sentenced to 12 years and three months' imprisonment and five years and three months' imprisonment respectively for firearms and ammunition offences. The defendants appealed against the sentences imposed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the sentences imposed had been manifestly excessive.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had been sentenced to five years' imprisonment for possessing a firearm after the discovery of a gun in a bag left in her home by an individual. The defendant had not enquired as to what was in the content of that bag. The defendant appealed against sentence following the Criminal Cases Review Commission made submissions for a reconsideration of the sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division in dismissing the appeal held that the sentence had not been manifestly excessive.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant was convicted by a Belgian court in his absence. He was subsequently present and represented before the court of appeal, which confirmed his conviction. His extradition was sought, but he opposed in on the basis that he had been convicted in his absence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant had been convicted in his presence as he had participated in a hearing before the Belgian court of appeal.
Data protection Processing of information. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the defendant credit reference agency's appeal, held that the defendant had not breached its obligations under the nor had it owed the claimant a concurrent duty in tort in circumstances where the defendant had included an incorrect entry in the claimant's credit file.
Extradition Extradition hearing. The Divisional Court, in dismissing an appeal against an order for the appellant's extradition to France, held that the judge had not wrongly categorised the European Arrest Warrant, he had not erred in finding that the appellant's extradition was not barred by double jeopardy and he had not erred in finding that the appellant's extradition was not barred by the passage of time.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had been sentenced to nine months' imprisonment following a conviction for fraud resulting from making a false accident claim to his motor insurance company. The defendant appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal held, amongst other things, that the sentence had not been manifestly excessive.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had been had been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for one offence of unlawful wounding. The defendant had historically been subjected to domestic violence by the victim. The defendant appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal quashed the custodial sentence and substituted a suspended sentence.
Police Powers. The Divisional Court, in quashing a search warrant executed in relation to the claimant company's premises, held that there had been a failure to comply with of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which had rendered the warrant unlawful. Where the rationale of s15 had been respected, it might be that the court would not grant relief beyond a declaration. However, in the instant case, neither the form nor the rationale of s15 had been complied with. The case would be remitted to the Queen's Bench Division for consideration of the damages to be awarded to the claimant.