Weekly Digest: 13 August 2018

6KBW

6KBW
13 August 2018

This week’s Digest contains an opinion of an Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union and two High Court judgments.  In Advocate General Szpunar’s opinion, he considered whether the UK’s notification of its intention to withdraw from the EU constitutes a ground for refusing to execute an EAW.  In the first High Court judgment, it considered whether a prisoner had a legitimate expectation that he would be repatriated to the UK to serve the remainder of his sentence only with his consent.  In the second judgment, the High Court considered whether the process for appointing Parole Board members and their tenure once appointed are sufficiently independent of the executive.

Minister for Justice and Equality v RO – Case C-327/18 PPU

The opinion, which is available here, was delivered by Advocate General Szpunar on 7 August 2018.

In 2016 the UK issued two EAWs in respect of RO for the purpose of prosecuting him for murder, arson and rape. RO was arrested in Ireland and resisted surrender to the UK on the basis of, amongst other things, issues relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The High Court in Ireland ruled against RO on all of his points other than those relating to the UK’s withdrawal. The High Court asked the CJEU whether, in light of the UK having given notice of its intention to withdraw from the EU and the uncertainty as to the arrangements which will be put in place after its withdrawal, the court was required to decline to surrender a person to the UK whose surrender would otherwise be required. In his opinion, Advocate General Szpunar proposed that the CJEU find that the EAW system should continue to apply for as long as the UK is a Member State.

R (on the application of McShane) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWHC 2049 (Admin)

The judgment, which is available here, was delivered by Walker J on 31 July 2018.

The claimant was a British citizen serving a sentence for drugs offences in Portugal. He withdrew his consent to be transferred to a UK prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. The court agreed that in the circumstances of the case, the claimant had a legitimate expectation that he would not be repatriated to the UK without his consent, despite the fact that Decision 2008/909 of the Council of the EU meant that the prisoner’s consent was no longer required.

R (on the application of Wakenshaw) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWHC 2089 (Admin)

The judgment, which is available here, was delivered by Mostyn J on 7 August 2018.

The claimant applied for permission to seek a declaration that the period of appointment and tenure for Parole Board members failed the test of objective independence. He also sought an interim injunction that would halt the selection of a new Chair until the relevant issues were addressed. The court agreed that the precarious nature of the tenure of Parole Board members breached the principle of judicial independence. The court refused to grant the interim injunction sought on the basis that it would be too disruptive.

English courts trial mental health referrals for vulnerable offenders