This week’s edition considers one judgment from the Supreme Court and one from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).  In the matter of an application by Deborah McGuinness for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2020] UKSC 6 concerned two appeals before the Court related to judicial review proceedings concerning the treatment of Mr Michael Stone, who attacked a group of mourners in Belfast in 1988. The issue was whether the the present proceedings constituted “a criminal cause or matter” with the result determining whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction. In R. v Baker (Robert); R. v Richards (Michael) [2020] EWCA Crim 176, the Court considered whether it was appropriate to impose an extended sentence on an offender who had already been recalled on licence in relation to an indeterminate sentence imposed for other offences.  It was held that both the fact that an offender had already been recalled and the effect of the extended sentence on the early release provisions were irrelevant to whether an extended sentence should be imposed. Insofar as there were conflicting Court of Appeal decisions on that point, R. v Smith (Nicholas) [2011] UKSC 37 was to be followed.

In the matter of an application by Deborah McGuinness for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2020] UKSC 6

The judgment, available here, was handed down on 19/2/2020.  The sole reasoned judgment was given by Lord Sales, with whom Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath and Lord Lloyd-Jones agreed.

The two appeals before the Court related to judicial review proceedings concerning the treatment of Mr Michael Stone, who attacked a group of mourners in Belfast in 1988. The issue was whether the the present proceedings constituted “a criminal cause or matter” with the result determining whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction.

R. v Baker (Robert); R. v Richards (Michael) [2020EWCA Crim 176

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Justice Fulford on 19/2/2020.

The Court considered  whether it was appropriate to impose an extended sentence on an offender who had already been recalled on licence in relation to an indeterminate sentence imposed for other offences.  It was held that both the fact that an offender had already been recalled and the effect of the extended sentence on the early release provisions were irrelevant to whether an extended sentence should be imposed. Insofar as there were conflicting Court of Appeal decisions on that point, R. v Smith (Nicholas) [2011] UKSC 37 was to be followed.

Terror suspect who breached temporary exclusion order is the first person to be convicted

 First operational deployment of facial recognition by Metropolitan Police failed to identify a single suspect

QC warns that extending terrorist prison terms could increase risk 

 

Previous post ‘Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing’?
Next post Weekly Digest: 2 March 2020