This week’s Digest considers four judgments. The first is from the Supreme Court, and relates to s. 90C of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The second and third were handed down by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and relate, respectively, to the availability of the defence of self-defence under s. 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and the imposition of consecutive sentences where multiple deaths are caused by an instance of dangerous driving. The fourth, a Divisional Court judgment, is an appeal against an extradition order. 

R v. Mackinlay and ors [2018] UKSC 42

The judgment, available here, was handed down on 25.07.18. The judgment was given by Lord Hughes.

The question certified by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) for consideration by the Supreme Court related to whether, under the Representation of the People Act 1983, election expenses offered at a discount or free of charge only fell to be declared as ‘election expenses’ if they had been authorised by the candidate, his election agent or some other authorised individual. The Supreme Court held that there is no room in the statutory regime for the added requirement of authorisation.

 

R v. Taj [2018] EWCA Crim 1743

The judgment available here, was handed down by Sir Brian Leveson P on 24.07.18.

In this appeal, the Court considered the wording of s. 76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which provides that the defence of self-defence is not available where a mistaken belief is attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced. The Court held that the word ‘attributable’ extended the scope of s. 76(5) to encompass both (a) intoxication at the time of the incident and (b) a state of mind immediately and proximately consequent upon earlier drink or drug-taking.

 

R v. Brown [2018] EWCA Crim 1775

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Sir Brian Leveson P on 26.07.18.

This was a reference under s. 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 that a sentence of 9 years and four months for driving whilst disqualified and causing two deaths by dangerous driving was unduly lenient. The reference succeeded; the sentence was found to be unduly lenient on the basis that the judge had erred in selecting too low a starting point. The first ground of challenge, that the judge was wrong to impose concurrent sentences and should have imposed consecutive ones for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving, was rejected.

 

 Tifrac v. Romanian Judicial Authority [2018] EWHC 1909 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Mr Justice Ouseley on 25.07.18.

This was an appeal against an extradition order on the grounds that the two EAWs, pursuant to which the appellant was ordered to be extradited, were deficient such that the appellant should be discharged. The appeal was dismissed; the particulars of the EAWs were adequately supplemented by the further information received from the Romanian judicial authority and the issue of the overlapping sentences between the EAWs could be solved in Romania.

  

Cannabis-based medicines get green light as UK eases rules

 

Burglaries rise while criminal charges fall

 

Renew treason laws to jail enemies of the state for life, thinktank says

 

Max Hill QC appointed new DPP

 

 

Previous post European Production and Preservation Orders
Next post Case Comment: the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tommy Robinson’s case