Court: Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Jess v High Court, Ireland  EWHC 3134 (Admin)
This case concerns an appeal against an extradition order made in respect of a European Arrest Warrant, specifically an accusation warrant, containing an allegation of attempted robbery said to have taken place in the Republic of Ireland in March 2015. The Warrant alleges that the appellant was one of two men who tried to rob […]
Oliver v Shaikh  EWHC 2658 (QB)
This hearing considered a penalty for contempt of court hearing in the ongoing proceedings of Oliver v Shaikh  EWHC 2658 (QB). The court considered the Defendant’s culpability for the breaches of the Order of 10 December 2019 not to write defamatory statements about the Claimant on websites, to be extremely high. The breaches began […]
High Court hands down judgment in judicial review challenge to the early release regime under the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020
R (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Justice Department  EWHC 2084 (Admin)
This was a judicial review application by which the Claimant sought to challenge the early release regime introduced by the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020. The Claimant challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice to enforce the legislation in his case, but in substance the challenge was to the legislation itself. The Claimant sought a declaration that s.247A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which was inserted by the 2020 Act, is incompatible with Articles 5, 7 and 14 of the Convention.
The Court dismissed the application. It held that there was no “other status” on which Article 14 could be based. With regards to Article 7, the Court found that the changes wrought by the 2020 Act were changes in the arrangements for early release; they were not changes to the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. In the absence of a fundamental change of the sort described in Del Rio Prada, a redefinition of the penalty itself; an amendment by the legislature to the arrangements for early release raise no issue under Article 7. The challenge under Article 5 was also rejected.
Election Petition does not automatically abate if Parliament dissolved before proceedings are concluded
Greene v Forbes  EWHC 676 (QB)
The petition, alleging electoral fraud, was brought by the defeated Brexit Party candidate against the successful Labour Party candidate in the Peterborough By-Election on 6 June 2019. The Petitioner had sought but not yet obtained special leave to withdraw the petition (which would have rendered him liable for the respondent’s costs) when Parliament was dissolved on 5 November 2011. He then sought to argue that two nineteenth century cases caused the petition to “drop” so that the court had no jurisdiction even to order him to pay the respondent’s costs. The court did not accept that the two historic cases meant that a Parliamentary petition under the Representation of the People Act 1983 abated upon dissolution. The Petitioner’s application to withdraw (paying the respondent’s costs) was however allowed.
Jones & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis  EWHC 2957 (Admin)
This case considered the proper interpretation of the words “public assembly” in section 14(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. This was an expedited, rolled-up hearing of an application for permission to apply for judicial review and, if permission is granted, a claim for judicial review of the decision of Superintendent Duncan McMillan to impose […]