Davis v Public Prosecutor of Landshut, Germany

Extradition Extradition hearing. The appellant had been implicated in a fraud upon the German revenue. He was arrested under a European arrest warrant and his extradition was sought. In the course of events, the respondent judicial authority provided additional information which appeared to infer that the appellant's involvement in the fraud had been as a result of recklessness rather than intention. At first instance the judge principally relied upon the warrant, not the additional information, and consequently ordered the appellant's extradition. The appellant appealed There was an inconsistency between the requirement for intention in the offence and the use of the word 'reckless' as appeared in the additional information. There was a doubt as to what was alleged against the appellant and therefore the requirement of dual criminality had not been met.

R v Smith

Sentence Confiscation order. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing a defendant's appeal against a confiscation order provided guidance on the circumstances when a tainted gift within the meaning of s9(1)(b) of the would be regarded as having no value.

Artola v 6th Section of the National High Court of Madrid Spain

Extradition Extradition order. The appellant was ordered to be extradited to Spain to face a terrorism offence. He appealed against the order on the basis that the European arrest warrant had been invalid. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the requirements for a valid warrant had been met.

Rogers v Deputy Commander (as trustee of the Garrison Amenities Fund) and another

Unfair dismissal Jurisdiction. The employee was a German national, and the wife of a British serving soldier who was employed to manage a children's play area in Germany under a contract made in Germany orally for an employer based in Germany. She appealed against the employment tribunal's decision that she was not entitled to pursue an unfair dismissal claim in England. In dismissing the appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal had been entitled to come to the conclusion that it had.

R (on the application of Sinha) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Passport United Kingdom Passport. The claimant had been refused an application to renew his UK passport. The Administrative Court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to issue him with a new passport. The evidence, taken together, more than satisfied the burden on the claimant to show that he was a British citizen and entitled to a new passport.

R v Watson

Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty to conveying cannabis resin into prison and to possession of a Class B drug, and was sentenced to a total of two years' imprisonment. In allowing the appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal held that, given the small amount of cannabis involved, a lower starting point was appropriate. The sentence was accordingly reduced to 16 months' imprisonment.

Voloshchuk v Government of Ukraine

Extradition Arrest. The claimant, a Ukrainian national, was convicted of several offences of shoplifting and failing to surrender to custody and was sentenced to imprisonment in the United Kingdom. Having been released from prison, he was immediately arrested and redetained following a request by the Ukrainian government for his extradition in respect of a conviction in the Ukraine for robbery. The Administrative Court, in refusing an application for bail, held that, in the light of the applicant's recent poor history of co-operation with courts and the authorities, it was simply too risky to allow the applicant to be released.

Caetano v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Police Powers. The Divisional Court, in allowing the claimant's judicial review application to challenge a caution given to her in relation to an offence of assault by beating on her partner, held that, on a proper assessment of the facts, no further action had been the obvious outcome. It followed that the case was one of those rare cases in which the court ought to intervene.

R v Isitt

Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had a history of alcohol abuse. He racially abused the victim, who was of Pakistani origin, in the presence of his five-year-old daughter while they were at a doctor's surgery. The defendant pleaded guilty to racially aggravated common assault. He was also in breach of suspended sentence orders. The defendant was sentenced to a total of 14 months' imprisonment. He appealed against sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal held, that, in the light of the aggravating factors of the offence, the sentence was wholly justified.

Santos v CPS Appeals Unit

Criminal Law Necessity as a defence. The appellant, having sought to advance a defence of necessity, was convicted of riding a motorcycle without insurance and without protective headgear, the justices ruling as a matter of law that, as the offences were strict liability offences, the defence of necessity could not be advanced. He appealed against the conviction by way of case stated. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the defence of necessity was available for offences of strict liability and that the appellant had been deprived of the opportunity of putting forward a defence which it had been open to him to put forward. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to a differently constituted bench with a different legal advisor for reconsideration.