This week’s edition considers seven judgments: five from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), one from the Divisional Court and one from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. In Abdurahman the Court of Appeal considered  the safety of an offender’s conviction in circumstances where the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR had held that there had been a violation of Article 6(1). In Gorman the Court of Appeal considered an application to adduce fresh CCTV evidence that had been disclosed at trial but not viewed by the defence. In Palmer the Court of Appeal considered whether section 133(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 applied when the Crown Court was revoking and re-sentencing a community order imposed for a summary only offence while also sentencing the offender for another summary only offence. In PSAbdi Dahir; CF the Court of Appeal gave guidance as to sentencing offenders with mental health conditions or disorders. In Wooff the Court of Appeal provided a summary of the chief features of the legal framework surrounding the minimum sentence for a third Class A drug trafficking offence under section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. In Bartulis v Panevezys Regional Court (Lithuania); Kmitas v Prosecutor General’s Office (Lithuania); Ostapec v Prosecutor General’s Office (Lithuania) the Divisional Court held that the evidence as to the risk of inter-personal violence to prisoners in Lithuanian prisons was not such as to displace the assumption that prison conditions in Lithuania were compliant with Article 3 of the ECHR. In Privacy International and others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal considered a challenge to the Security Service’s policy on the  use of agents who participate in criminality.

R v Abdurahman [2019] EWCA Crim 2239

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Dame Victoria Sharp P on 17/12/19

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant’s conviction was safe despite the finding of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights that there had been a violation of Article 6 due to the admission of statements he had made when being questioned as a suspect without being arrested, cautioned or informed of his right to legal advice.

Louis Mably QC appeared for the Crown Prosecution Service.

R v Gorman [2019] EWCA Crim 2271

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Fulford LJ on 19/12/19

The Court of Appeal allowed an application to adduce CCTV evidence that had been disclosed at trial but not viewed by the defence where the prosecution agreed it showed that an allegation made by a witness at the trial that the appellant had tried to intimidate her on a given date could not have happened. However, they held the jury’s verdict was still safe as the fresh evidence did not undermine the safety of the evidence given by the witness in relation to the appellant’s role in the substantive offending which was supported by statements she had made to a number of other witnesses at the time.

R v Palmer [2019] EWCA Crim 2231

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Jeremy Baker J on 16/05/19.

The Court of Appeal held that the effect of paragraph 23 of Schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is that if a Crown Court decides to revoke a community order which was made in respect of a summary-only offence and re-sentence the offender while sentencing him for another summary-only offence, the Crown Court is constrained by section 133(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 such that the sentences in respect of those summary-only offences is limited to a total period of 6 months’ imprisonment.

R v PS; R v Abdi Dahir; R v CF [2019] EWCA Crim 2286

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ on 20/12/19.

The Court of Appeal considered three otherwise unconnected cases in order to provide guidance on the sentencing of offenders with mental health disorders or conditions in the absence of a specific guideline on the issue.

R v Wooff [2019] EWCA Crim 2249

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Holroyde LJ on 12/12/19

The Court of Appeal provided a summary of the chief features of the legal framework surrounding the minimum sentence for a third Class A drug trafficking offence under section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Bartulis v Panevezys Regional Court (Lithuania); Kmitas v Prosecutor General’s Office (Lithuania); Ostapec v Prosecutor General’s Office (Lithuania) [2019] EWHC 3504 (Admin)

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Irwin LJ on 20/12/19.

The Divisional Court held that evidence as to the risk of inter-personal violence to prisoners in Lithuanian prisons was not such as to displace the assumption that prison conditions in Lithuania were compliant with Article 3 of the ECHR.

Jonathan Hall QC appeared for the First, Second and Third Appellants.

Privacy International and others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others [2019] UKIPTrib IPT_17_186_CH

Singh LJ, gave the majority judgment, available here, on 20/12/19.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held, by a majority of three to two, that the Security Service Guidelines on the use of agents who participate in criminality and the authorisations issued in accordance with them were lawful, did not confer immunity from the general criminal law, and were not required to be further disclosed.

David Perry QC and William Hays appeared for the Respondents.

 Queen’s speech: ‘Royal Commission on criminal justice’

New Money Laundering Regulations

Lady Hale warns UK not to select judges on basis of political views

Previous post Weekly Digest: 16 December 2019
Next post Weekly Digest: 21 January 2020