R v Rahman

Sentence Imprisonment. The defendant had been sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving contrary to s2B of the . He appealed against the sentence imposed contending that the judge had imposed a manifestly excessive sentence by failing to apply the death by driving sentencing council guidelines and failing to take into significant account the mitigating features of the offence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed the appeal after concluding that the judge had taken all relevant factors into consideration when sentencing and had thus not imposed a manifestly excessive sentence.

R v Hurley

Criminal law Appeal. The defendant had been convicted with possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to s5(1)(b) of the and appealed against conviction, contending that the prosecution had not provided any evidence that the item in question was a weapon designed or adapted for the discharge of a noxious liquid, gas or other thing. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appeal held that the thrust of the offence had been the design and capability of the item. Evidence had been given at the trial that weapons of the type of design as the item were capable of discharging 50,000 volts of electricity and it was that design and capability of the item which sufficed for the offence to have been committed.

C v Birminham & Solihul Mental Health NHS Trust and another

Mental health Patient. The claimants were both restricted patients subject to restriction orders under the . They applied to the First Tier Tribunal for a recommendation for transfer to a less restrictive location. The First Tier Tribunal declined to deal with the requests and the claimants appealed, asserting that there was a legitimate expectation that the requests would be considered. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeals on the basis that there was no such legitimate expectation.

*R v Turner

Criminal law Appeal. The defendant had been convicted of the murder of his girlfriend after the use of covert surveillance provided evidence of significant admissions made by the defendant of his responsibility for her death. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 16 years. He appealed against conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division dismissed both appeals rejecting the defendant's submissions that the covert surveillance evidence should not have been admitted into evidence at the trial and that the minimum term of the sentence had been imposed unjustifiably.

Z and others v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others

Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. In the context of criminal proceedings brought against a mother for benefit fraud, the Family Division held that at that stage in the proceedings it was necessary and proportionate that there was no reporting of any information which identified family members or the family name in order to give effect to the rights of the children under art8 of the European Convention.

*R v Jawad

Sentence Confiscation order. The defendant had pleaded guilty to a money laundering connected with frauds on a bank. The loss to the bank from the fraud had been 64,086.76 (the loss). A confiscation order was made, pursuant to the which included the full amount of the loss. A compensation order was subsequently made, also for the full amount of the loss. The defendant appealed against the confiscation order contending that it was disproportionate. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that if within 28 days of the date of the judgment the defendant repaid to the bank the sum of 64,086.76, together with the interest properly payable upon it, then the appeal would be allowed to the extent of reducing the confiscation order by 64,086.76. If the defendant did not pay that sum within 28 days the appeal would be dismissed.

Belbin v Lille Court of First Instance, France

Extradition Extradition hearing. The appellant, a United Kingdom citizen, had appeared before the Crown Court in July 2011 on an indictment containing one count of conspiracy to supply cannabis and one count of conspiracy to supply amphetamine, to the first of which he pleaded guilty and in respect of the second of which no evidence was offered resulting in a not guilty verdict being entered. Following a subsequent conviction in his absence by the respondent French court of offences of conspiracy, drug trafficking and money laundering, he was sentenced to a term of seven years' imprisonment. The appellant's extradition was sought by the respondent court in order to serve that term. In January 2013, a district judge, having rejected the appellant's argument based on double jeopardy, ordered his extradition on the conspiracy allegation and the money laundering offences only. The appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that on the facts, like the district judge, it was unable to accept that there was any basis upon which the appellant's extradition should be prevented on the grounds of double jeopardy.

R v Rahl

Sentence Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division allowed a defendant's appeal against sentence for wounding with intent in circumstances where new material was made available expressing the defendant's continued and genuine remorse for commission of the offence.

R v Phillips and another

Sentence Imprisonment. The first and second defendants had received total sentences of 9 years' imprisonment and 12 years' detention for the parts they had played in the false imprisonment, assault and threats by use of a gun inflicted upon the victim. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division hearing the defendants' appeals against sentence held that the sentences had been manifestly excessive and would be reduced to reflect the personal mitigating factors for each defendant. The first defendant's sentence was reduced to seven years' imprisonment. The second defendant's sentence was reduced to ten and a half years' detention.

R (on the application of Minter) v Chief Constable of Hampshire Police and another

Sentence Notification and orders. The claimant had been convicted of sexual offences and given an extended sentence which, when aggregated, meant that upon release he would be subject to notification requirements for an indefinite period. If his custodial sentence only was taken into account, the notification requirements would last only ten years. The defendant Chief Constable decided that the indefinite period was the applicable one as the custodial sentence and extension were to be aggregated. The claimant's application for judicial review of that decision was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the definition of 'custodial sentence' in s76 of the informed the meaning of 'sentenced ... to imprisonment for a term of 30 months or more' as contained in s82 of the . Consequently, the indefinite notification requirements did apply to the claimant and did not constitute a breach of his rights under arts8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.