Extradition Extradition hearing. The appellant's extradition to Poland was ordered to serve a sentence of one year imprisonment for burglary offences. He appealed. In the interim, he had served over one year on an electronic curfew, every day of which counted as a day off his sentence for the purpose of Polish law. At the hearing of the appeal Poland had conceded that the appeal should be allowed as it would be an abuse of process for the extradition to continue. Accordingly, the appellant would be discharged.
Citizenship United Kingdom citizenship. The Secretary of State refused the claimant Pakistani national British citizenship on the ground that he lacked good character due to an offence of driving while using a mobile telephone. The claimant sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that it was impossible to conclude that the decision on the facts known to the Secretary of State had been one to which no Secretary of State acting reasonably could have reached.
Contempt of court Committal. The defendants had published on Facebook and Twitter photographs of two individuals who had been convicted of murder when they were eleven-years-old in breach of an injunction against the world at large. The Attorney General sought their committal for contempt. The defendants admitted the breaches. The Queen's Bench Division considered the very serious aggravating factors and sentenced them to imprisonment for nine months, suspended for fifteen months.
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.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to two offences of burglary and two offences of theft and to the possession of class B controlled drugs, for which he was sentenced to a total sentence of six years and ten months' imprisonment. He appealed against sentence. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the sentence was a proportionate reflection of the defendant's overall offending and having regard to his criminal record.
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.
Medical practitioner Disciplinary panel. The appellant, C, a registered nurse, was convicted of driving with excess alcohol and assault by beating, as a consequence of which he was made the subject of an interim suspension order by the respondent council. Following a hearing of the allegations before a panel of the respondent's Conduct and Competence Committee (the panel), the panel found, amongst other things, that C's fitness to practice was currently impaired and concluded that the only appropriate sanction was striking off. C appealed against the decision to remove his name from the respondent's register. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the panel had been fully entitled to reach the conclusion that C's current fitness to practice had been impaired by reason of his convictions. Further, it had been entitled to the view that the nature of the assault had been such that only a striking-off order had been appropriate.
Sentence Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed a defendant's appeal against a sentence of two years' imprisonment following a conviction of assault by penetration where the offence had been committed by the defendant against the victim, both of whom had been officers for the Royal Air Force. The defendant's submissions that the sentence had been manifestly excessive were rejected as having no merit.
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.