Extradition Evidence. The Republic of Argentina sought the extradition of the appellant for questioning with respect to a discovery of cocaine at an airport. The judge had sent the case to the Secretary of State for a decision on the appellant's extradition and the appellant appealed. He sought to adduce further material on appeal. The Administrative Court, in refusing to admit the material, held that there was no evidence that the further material was not available at the final extradition hearing and it would not have resulted in a different finding.
Arrest Arrest without warrant. Lord Hanningfield sought damages for unlawful arrest, search and detention. The Queen's Bench Division held that the search was not unlawful merely because he was not perceived to be dangerous. However, there was no necessity for his summary arrest bypassing all the usual statutory safeguards involved in obtaining a warrant. Accordingly, he was entitled to damages.
Extradition Extradition hearing. Following the issue of a European Arrest Warrant by the respondent judicial authority in respect of the appellant, a district judge ordered his return to serve the balance of sentences totalling 2 years which had been imposed on him for non-residential burglary and robbery. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal against the order, held that, in all the circumstances, it would be disproportionate to return the appellant to Poland. If the warrant had been issued within a reasonable time it would have been virtually impossible for the appeal to have succeeded. However, the lapse of time had made all the difference when coupled with the short period of the sentence that remained to be served.
Criminal law Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the defendants' appeals against the judge's decision to dismiss their applications to stay the indictments for abuse of process on the ground of entrapment as it was not possible to say that the judge had been wrong to conclude that on the facts of the case the stay application had not been made out.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to convert or transfer criminal property (count one) and one count of converting criminal property (count two). He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for count one and six months' imprisonment for count two to run consecutively giving a total sentence of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence to the extent that count two was to run concurrently to count one and count one would be reduced to three-and-a-half years giving the defendant a total sentence of three-and-a-half years' imprisonment.
Extradition Arrest. The appellant was a Polish national living in UK with his pregnant wife and child. He appealed against a decision of the district judge ordering his extradition to Poland. No grounds of appeal were submitted, however, the appellant applied for bail pending removal. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal but, in view of the appellant's financial ties and family considerations, granted the appellant bail with stringent conditions.
Criminal law Appeal. The defendants had been convicted of murder and other offences relating from one incident. At trial, the judge had admitted into evidence police interview recordings of one witness who had proved uncooperative at the trial. The defendants appealed contending that such hearsay evidence should not have been admissible. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the appeals and held that the evidence had been correctly admitted.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had been sentenced to eight months' imprisonment following conviction for one count of going equipped for theft. The defendant had been searched by police and found to be in possession of a de-tagging device used to remove security tags from items in shops. The defendant appealed against the sentence imposed. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal made reference to his appalling criminal record, which consisted of 68 previous convictions, and ruled that the sentence imposed had not been manifestly excessive.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was an overwhelming case for the continuation of a freezing injunction against the defendant employee in circumstances where there were strong grounds for supposing that she was involved in criminal fraud by milking numerous sums of money from the claimant bank's clients by stealth and deception.
Sentence Confiscation order. The defendant had pleaded guilty to offences of money laundering and possession of criminal property. A confiscation order in the sum of 326,906.74 was subsequently made against the defendant. The defendant appealed stating that the figure had incorrectly included amounts not attributable to him. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division in dismissing the appeal, held that the determination of the confiscation order had been neither unjust nor disproportionate.