The magistrates’ court had erred in ruling that articles concerning human rights abuse in Slovakia were not admissible but there was nothing in that material to show that the applicant should not be extradited for reasons in s.6(1)(d) Extradition Act 1989.
Balham Youth Court had erred in granting a second adjournment in the prosecution of the claimant for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in circumstances where the only two prosecution witnesses had not given credible reasons for their failure to attend.
A custody time limit was extended for good and sufficient cause where the trial could not proceed on the listed date because of the defence’s failure to notify the court of an increase in the time estimate.
The judge presiding over confiscation proceedings did not err in ruling that the sentencing judge had taken and made manifest a decision to postpone the confiscation proceedings until after sentence was passed.
The justices should not have declined to adjourn confiscation order enforcement proceedings to allow the prosecution to appear or for information to be obtained in relation to the extent to which steps had been taken to realise assets held outside of the jurisdiction before committing the offender to prison in default of payment.