A magistrates’ decision to adjourn a trial was ultimately an exercise in case management which was reasonable and took account of all relevant considerations. Further, in view of the defendant’s application at the start of the trial to adduce bad character evidence the decision to adjourn was almost inevitable.
Where the Court of Appeal reviewed a sentence imposed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and substituted an extended sentence for one of imprisonment for public protection, the offender’s continued detention remained subject to the 2003 Act, notwithstanding that the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 came into force while the appeal was pending.
The Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the term “judicial authority” in the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(2) was to be accorded the same meaning as it had in Decision 2002/584 art.6, and that a European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor was therefore a valid Part 1 warrant issued by a judicial authority within the meaning of s.2(2).
The Crown Court had erred in reading a pre-sentence report prepared for a magistrates’ court before it heard an appeal against conviction. That was prejudicial, or at least appeared to be prejudicial.
The admission of a defendant’s guilty plea into the trial of his co-defendants on terrorism charges, in a manner that did not show that the defendant was denying every allegation in which some of the co-defendants were involved, did not render their convictions unsafe. That was because there was clear, independent evidence that implicated all the co-defendants, and which had nothing to do with the first defendant’s plea.