Weekly Digest: 2 December 2019

6KBW

2 December 2019

This week’s edition considers seven judgments; one of the Supreme Court, three of the Court of Appeal, and two of the Divisional Court. In R (on the application of Hemmati and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] UKSC 56 the Court considered whether five individuals were entitled to damages for the tort of false imprisonment as a result of the failure of the Secretary of State to implement correctly the requirements of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation. R. v Lee (Arthur Walter) [2019] EWCA Crim 2052 concerned an appeal against an individual’s conviction for two counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue.  In R. v Cunningham (Christopher); R. v Di Stefano (Giovanni) [2019] EWCA Crim 2101 the Court considered whether the Registrar of Criminal Appeals has the power, in certain circumstances, to determine the merits of an application to re-open a decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In R. v McChleery (Ivan) [2019] EWCA Crim 2100 the Court considered an appeal against conviction of indecent assault. In AC v Sweden [2019] EWHC 3213 (Admin) the Court considered an application for permission to appeal against an order for her extradition to Sweden pursuant to an accusation European Arrest Warrant. R. (on the application of Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWHC 3214 (Admin) considered a challenge to the decision made by the Deputy Director of Custody High Security not to hold an oral hearing when deciding whether to downgrade the Claimant’s prisoner  classification from Category A.

R (on the application of Hemmati and others) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2019] UKSC 56

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Kitchin on 27/11/2019.

The Court considered whether five individuals were entitled to damages for false imprisonment whilst in immigration detention as a result of the failure of the Secretary of State to implement correctly the requirements of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation.

R. v Lee (Arthur Walter) [2019] EWCA Crim 2052

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Justice Fulford on 26/11/2019.

This case concerned an appeal against an individual’s conviction for two counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue.  Although there had been failures in the prosecution’s disclosure process, they had not been in bad faith and they had been cured by the time of the trial. The prosecution had also been entitled not to investigate further the allegation that there had been another conspirator, due to insufficient evidence against him.

R. v Cunningham (Christopher); R. v Di Stefano (Giovanni) [2019] EWCA Crim 2101

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ on 29/11/2019.

These conjoined cases concerned the Court of Appeal’s power to reconsider its previous decisions. It required consideration of two preliminary procedural issues, namely: i) whether the Registrar of Criminal Appeals has the power, in certain circumstances, to determine the merits of an application to re-open a decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division); and ii) depending, in part, on the answer to i), the role of the single judge and the full court in determining these applications.

R. v McChleery (Ivan) [2019] EWCA Crim 2100

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ on 29/11/2019.

This case involved consideration of an appeal against conviction for indecent assault.

AC v Sweden [2019] EWHC 3213 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Mr Justice Kerr on 28/11/2019.

In this decision the Court considered an application for permission to appeal against an order for her extradition to Sweden pursuant to an accusation European Arrest Warrant.

R. (on the application of Harrison) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] EWHC 3214 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Mr Justice Kerr on 28/11/2019.

The Court considered a challenge to the decision made by the Deputy Director of Custody High Security not to hold an oral hearing when deciding whether to downgrade the Claimant’s prison security classification from Category A.

Dismay as Hillsborough police chief cleared of manslaughter

Metropolitan Police to pay Proctor £500,000 compensation after false accusation

Conditional Cautioning: Adults – DPP Guidance