The court gave guidance on the approach to be adopted in cases of judicial review of the Victims’ Right to Review Scheme. EWHC 1426 (Admin)
The right in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.133 to compensation for a miscarriage of justice was not applicable to every person whose conviction had been found unsafe on the basis of newly discovered facts outside the normal time limit for appeal. It was only where the newly discovered facts established that the claimant would not, or could not, have been lawfully prosecuted. EWHC 2383 (Admin)
The secretary of state’s “absconder policy”, which excluded from transfer to open conditions any prisoner with a history of absconding, escaping, or serious failure relating to release on temporary licence was inconsistent with his directions to the parole board issued under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Pt 12 s.239(6) and set out in Prison Service Instruction 36/2012 Annex D. While the directions remained in force, the absconder policy was unlawful. EWHC 927 (QB)
The consultation process into changes in the provision of criminal legal aid services had been procedurally flawed. The Lord Chancellor’s failure to consult upon the content of two reports which had determined the number of contracts to be offered to law firms had been so unfair as to result in illegality. EWHC 3020 (Admin)
When assessing whether the disclosure by the police in an enhanced criminal records certificate of allegations made against a nurse of neglect and ill-treatment was unlawful and in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8, a judge had been wrong to take account of fresh material that had not been available when the certificate was compiled because that sidelined the decision-maker and truncated regulatory process. She should have remitted the case or encouraged the individual to submit a fresh application for a new certificate. EWCA Civ 1706
The decision-making process concerning whether a detained person should be transferred from a medium-secure hospital to high security conditions engaged the common law duty of fairness. The court gave guidance about the correct approach to be taken by the managers of medium security units to a proposed transfer. EWHC 3200 (Admin)
A local authority had been wrong to withdraw a licence enabling a man with learning difficulties to work with children and vulnerable adults upon discovering that he had been subject to unsubstantiated sexual abuse charges two years earlier. Its decision-making process had been defective and it had also misunderstood Criminal Records Bureau policy relating to the requirement for a continuous five-year address history. EWHC 3602 (Admin)
The Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors was entitled to go beyond instructional ability when considering if a person was a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.127(3)(e). A person’s character, behaviour and standard of conduct, as well as any spent convictions, were all relevant considerations. EWCA Civ 808
The secretary of state was permitted by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 s.32(6) to give directions to the Parole Board so as to give guidance as to legally relevant matters for it to take into account in discharging its duty to determine whether to order a prisoner’s release from jail under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 s.28(6) . The judge below had erred in granting a declaration to the contrary. EWCA Civ 1779
Where the secretary of state was making a finding of fact as to the appropriate foreign law applicable to a decision as to whether to make an extradition order, he was not required to reach the criminal standard of proof. EWHC 1203 (Admin)
The prisoner failed in his application for an order that the Parole Board reconsider its decision refusing to release him on licence as there was no legal error in the board’s approach to medical evidence or in its approach to the lack of a release plan. It was erroneous for the board to think that the directions of the secretary of state relating to the release of a life prisoner applied to functions of a judicial nature, but that caused no detriment to the prisoner and did not vitiate the board’s decision. EWHC 546 (Admin)
The grading of a prisoner into an appropriate category was to be based on the likelihood of escape and the risk to the public if the escape was successful; other considerations such as the prospect of adverse publicity and the state of the prisoner’s financial resources were not justifiable factors. There was no right for a prisoner serving a determinate sentence to make representations prior to categorisation decisions. EWHC 1817 (Admin)
Fairness required that the claimant prisoner should have been given the opportunity to make representations before an order for segregation within a young offenders’ institution was made, unless reasons of good order, discipline or urgency or other relevant circumstances required that the order should be made without her having that opportunity. EWHC 1418 (Admin)
A chief constable could, with regard to proceedings for anti-social behavioural orders, delegate or devolve the functions set out in ss.1(1) and (2) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to any officer or officers judged suitable by him. EWHC 1087 (Admin)
In considering whether to deport a person pursuant to the provisions of s.3(5)(b) Immigration Act 1971, where that person had been convicted of a criminal offence and where the relevant Home Office departmental policy guidance was DP2/93, the seriousness of the offence on the one hand (which could often usefully be gauged by the length of the sentence) had to be carefully balanced against the family ties on the other.
The magistrates had erred in finding that the principle “costs follow the event” apply against local authorities where complainants successfully challenged an authority’s decision.