This week’s edition considers one judgment of the Supreme Court,  two of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), two of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and two of the Divisional Court. In MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department the Court held that when determining an appeal in which it was argued that that removal would breach rights protected by the ECHR, the First-tier Tribunal was not bound by a decision reached under the National Referral Mechanism as to whether the appellant was a victim of trafficking, nor did it have to look for public law reasons why that decision was flawed. In Roddis v R. where an individual who in 2008 had been convicted of placing a hoax bomb and preparing a terrorist act was subsequently diagnosed as having autistic spectrum disorder, that diagnosis did not affect the safety of his convictions. R. v A concerned an application by the prosecution for leave to appeal against a terminating ruling in the Crown Court, under s.58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. In Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor a judge had failed to apply the correct standard of proof when determining the defendants’ counterclaim of dishonest conspiracy against the claimants, and the matter was remitted to a new judge for re-determination. In Andreewitch v Moutreuil the Court considered whether contemnors had to be informed of their right to silence at the hearing of a committal application, especially if they were litigants in person. In the absence of that procedural safeguard, a committal hearing was likely to be procedurally unfair. In BM v Republic of Ireland (No 2) the court anonymised a requested person and her immediate family in an extradition judgment where the requested person’s daughter suffered from a serious condition such that identification would likely lead to harm to the family. Ward, R (On the Application Of) v The Crown Prosecution Service concerned an application to have a conviction set aside, on the ground of that the procedure was unfair in that, he submitted, he was convicted for an offence for which he was not charged and/or an offence the particulars of which he was not made aware.

MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 9

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lady Hale on 18/3/2020.

When determining an appeal in which it was argued that that removal would breach rights protected by the ECHR, the First-tier Tribunal was not bound by a decision reached under the National Referral Mechanism as to whether the appellant was a victim of trafficking, nor did it have to look for public law reasons why that decision was flawed. The removal of a trafficked victim to Pakistan, where he would not be at further risk, nevertheless amounted to a breach of art.4 because there had not yet been an effective investigation into the breach of art.4, and it was clear that an effective investigation could not take place if the victim was removed.

Roddis v R. [2020] EWCA Crim 396

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Justice Fulford on 17/3/2020.

Where an individual who in 2008 had been convicted of placing a hoax bomb and preparing a terrorist act was subsequently diagnosed as having autistic spectrum disorder, that diagnosis did not affect the safety of his convictions. There had been directly relevant psychological evidence, available at the time of his trial, about his lack of understanding about the consequences of his actions, which his lawyers had chosen not to use because it conflicted with his defence.

R v A [2020] EWCA Crim 407

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Justice Simon on 17/3/2020.

This was an application by the prosecution for leave to appeal against a terminating ruling in the Crown Court, under s.58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 408

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Sir Geoffrey Vos on 18/3/2020.

A judge had failed to apply the correct standard of proof when determining the defendants’ counterclaim of dishonest conspiracy against the claimants, and the matter was remitted to a different judge for re-determination.

Andreewitch v Moutreuil [2020] EWCA Civ 382

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Justice Peter Jackson on 17/3/2020.

Contemnors had to be informed of their right to silence at the hearing of a committal application, especially if they were litigants in person. In the absence of that procedural safeguard, a committal hearing was likely to be procedurally unfair.

BM v Republic of Ireland (No 2) [2020] EWHC 648 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Mr Justice Lane on 18/3/2020.

The court anonymised a requested person and her immediate family in an extradition judgment where the requested person’s daughter suffered from a serious condition such that identification would likely lead to harm to the family. However, a very good case had to be made for a person who had been convicted of a criminal offence abroad to avoid being named in English extradition proceedings.

Ward, R (On the Application Of) v The Crown Prosecution Service [2020] EWHC 680 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Justice Hickinbottom on 19/3/2020.

This case concerned an application to have a conviction set aside on the ground of that the procedure was unfair in that, it was submitted, the Claimant was convicted for an offence for which he was not charged and/or an offence the particulars of which he was not made aware.

Police to compel patients with virus into six-week quarantine

Police and the health authorities are to be able to detain and quarantine patients with coronavirus for up to six weeks as emergency laws tabled in Parliament make it a criminal offence for people to fail to comply, attempt to escape or provide misleading information to officers who stop them, with fines of up to £1,000. The Government has acknowledged that the powers were “likely to result in some controversy”. London mayor Sadiq Khan has warned that civil liberties will have to be infringed to save lives.

The full piece can be read here.

[/showhide]

 Anti-Money Laundering Supervision by the Legal and Accountancy Professional Body Supervisors: Progress and themes from 2019

A report from the Financial Conduct Authority’s Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision examines progress made in addressing money laundering (AML) over 2019. Key findings include that: the accountancy and legal professions have made strong improvements in their supervision of AML work; and; that there has been a notable increase in governance arrangements for AML supervision.

The full piece can be read here.

[/showhide]

Previous post Making the most of pupillage
Next post Weekly Digest: 30 March 2020