Criminal Law Compensation. The respondent had been severely injured in a road traffic collision caused by a third party, H, running into the path of an oncoming lorry, the inference of which was that he had been trying to kill himself. The respondent was denied compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) on the basis that compensation was payable only if the claimant was the victim of a criminal injury and the CICA had been unable to pinpoint a crime of violence of which the respondent was a victim. On appeal, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) held that it was not satisfied that an offence under s20 of the had been committed, as it was not satisfied that H, when he ran out into the carriageway, had intended to cause harm, or had been reckless as to whether harm might be caused by his actions. The Upper Tribunal upheld the decision of the FTT. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and directed that the matter be remitted to a differently constituted FTT to reconsider the issue of recklessness. The Supreme Court, in allowing the appeal by the CICA, held that the Court of Appeal had failed to identify a flaw in the reasoning of the FTT which could be said to amount to an error of law and accordingly, the decision of the FTT would be restored. Further, that the crime that s20 of the defined would always amount to a crime of violence for the purposes of the scheme for compensation for criminal injury.
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.
Criminal law Appeal. The defendant taxi driver had been convicted of dangerous driving following an incident when, believing that his passengers had made off without paying, he gave chase to the victim in his taxi, subsequently knocking the victim down and causing injury to him. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against conviction and held that the judge had erred in his direction to the jury resulting in the conviction being unsafe.
Criminal law Appeal. The defendant was convicted of robbery and conspiracy to rob in 1985. He had unsuccessfully appealed against conviction on two occasions. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's third appeal against conviction following the discovery of new evidence which discredited the evidence of two police officers who had given evidence in the case. The convictions were quashed.
Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division provided detailed guidance on the issue of pleading guilty on a basis of plea in circumstances where a number of appeals against sentence were determined together where they each raised some aspect of the issue.
Criminal law Appeal. The defendants were employed as either a nurse or prison-health officer in a prison. They had all been convicted of misconduct offences for activities undertaken during their course of employment involving supplying mobile telephones to a prisoner. They appealed against conviction contending that they had not held a public office by virtue of their employment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the appeals and held that the duties undertaken in their employment amply fulfilled the requirements of a public office.
Extradition Extradition hearing. The respondent requesting state sought the appellant's extradition to stand trial for attempted murder. The Administrative Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the decision to send his case to the Secretary of State for determination. His extradition was not barred by passage of time, there was a prima facie case to answer and the prison conditions would not breach his rights under art3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sentence Life sentence. The defendant was convicted of the violent rape of an elderly woman. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. In dismissing his appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, in all the circumstances, and given the gravity of the offence, the judge's conclusion could not properly be criticised.
Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicle taking and to driving whilst disqualified. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences totalling 20 months' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for five years. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal against sentence, held that the overall outcome was too high and ordered that the sentences were to be served concurrently, making a total of 16 months' imprisonment. The period of disqualification was reduced to two years.