Criminal law Money laundering. The appellant was convicted of offences under the Financial and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2002 in Mauritius. The Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed his appeal on the grounds that he bore the burden of establishing the 'business activities' exemption and that that exemption did not apply. The Privy Council, in dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that, on the ordinary meaning of 'business activities', the appellant's activities were not within it. Further, the Supreme Court had been right to hold that it had been for the appellant to show that the transaction had been within one of the exempt categories.
Criminal law Money laundering. The defendant appealed against his conviction for converting criminal property. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had not erred in permitting amendment of the indictment after a successful no case to answer submission or in ruling that the acts alleged in the amended count had not been subsumed by conspiracies to defraud of which he had been acquitted. Further, the Crown Court had had jurisdiction to deal with the amended count where all the activities alleged had been undertaken in Spain by a non-resident of the United Kingdom in relation to a Spanish bank account.
Freedom of information Information. The claimant complained to the first defendant Information Commissioner in respect of the second defendant local authority's failure to provide information under the in the requested Excel format and to help him to formulate an appropriate request. The complaints and appeals were dismissed and the claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the authority had been required to provide the information in the requested format. Further, the authority had complied with its duty to help him to formulate an appropriate request.
Practice Application. The claimant bank sought Norwich Pharmacal orders against a number of persons to whom payments had been made in error. The Chancery Division held that, excluding some of the personal details sought, the orders would be granted.
Proceeds of crime Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The claimant National Crime Agency sought a civil recovery order, under the over eight properties, the proceeds of rental income, and English and Luxembourg bank accounts. The Queen's Bench Division held that, with the exception of one property, the assets were recoverable, as they had been acquired through unlawful conduct, namely, drug dealing, money laundering or VAT fraud.
Practice Hearing. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the circumstances in which the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) could lawfully adopt a closed material procedure in which a party and his legal representatives were excluded from the hearing or part of it when it was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner. It held that the features most comprehensively spelt out in British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection v Information Commissioner and another ( UKFTT EA_2010_0064 (GRC)) fully justified the approach taken in the present case, in which the maximum candour possible had been achieved.
Warrant Search warrant. A search and seizure warrant was issued and executed at the claimants' home and business address, and a large quantity of material was seized. They issued judicial review proceedings, contending that the warrant had been unlawfully issued and the documents wrongly taken on the basis of material non-disclosure. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, determined the applicable test for setting aside a warrant. Applying that test, it set aside the warrant, as there had been a material non-disclosure which might well have led the judge to issue a warrant which, had there been full candour, he would have refused to issue.
YS v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel; Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v M and another
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 2(a), 12(a) and 13(1)(d), (f) and (g) of Directive (EC) 95-46 of the European Parliament and of the Council (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), and of arts 8(2) and 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The requests had been made in two sets of proceedings between third country nationals who had applied for a residence permit for a fixed period in the Netherlands, and the Netherlands Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum, concerning the Minister's refusal to communicate to those nationals a copy of an administrative document drafted before the adoption of the decisions on their applications for residence permits.
Disclosure and inspection of documents Application. The claimant had been imprisoned for the murder of his girlfriend. He sought the disclosure of further information relating to the case from the police. The first defendant Chief Constable refused to disclose documents to the extent required by the claimant. The claimant commenced an application for judicial review, seeking, among other things, an order requiring the Chief Constable to grant him access to the prosecution evidence. The Supreme Court held, in dismissing the application, that there was no indefinitely continuing duty on the police or prosecution either in the same form as existed pre-trial or to respond to whatever enquiries the claimant might make for access to the case materials to allow re-investigation.
Police Disclosure of information. The claimant left the police force for another job with a regulatory body before an internal investigation into his misconduct was completed. The force through its Assistant Chief Officer GH sent on his behalf sent a standard reference which did not answer questions in the regulatory body's reference request raising the claimant's sickness and disciplinary record. The Chief Constable brought proceedings seeking to send another fuller second reference. The Queen's Bench Division held that the Chief Constable was obliged by his duty to act with honesty and integrity not to give a standard reference for the recipient because that was misleading. However given the circumstances it would be a breach of the and would undermine the claimant's legitimate expectations for the second reference to be sent.