ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

[2018] EWCA Civ 1587 [2018] EWCA Civ 1587

A senior investigating police officer had maliciously prosecuted three men for murder when presenting a case to the CPS based on the evidence of a witness he had prompted to implicate them. They were entitled to damages for the loss caused by that malicious prosecution and the officer’s misfeasance in public office.

[2018] UKSC 33 [2018] UKSC 33

In its ordinary and natural meaning, “proceedings in a criminal cause or matter” in the Justice and Security Act 2013 s.6(11) included proceedings by way of judicial review of a decision made in a criminal cause, and nothing in the context or purpose of the legislation suggested a different meaning.

[2018] EWCA Civ 1534 [2018] EWCA Civ 1534

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was not unlawfully discriminatory in denying compensation to victims of human trafficking who had unspent criminal convictions which had resulted in a custodial sentence or community order. The exclusion pursued a legitimate aim and was justified.

[2018] EWHC 694 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin)

The Parole Board Rules 2016 r.25(1), which prohibited making information public about Parole Board proceedings, was too broad and was ultra vires the rule-making power set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Pt 12 s.239(5). The Board’s decision directing the release of a Category A prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence was irrational, as the Board should have undertaken further inquiry into the circumstances of his offending, and in particular the fact that he had admitted only to the 12 sexual offences of which he had been convicted, when there were references in the dossier to “80+ potential victims” and a key issue leading to the release decision was his openness and honesty. The further inquiry would have allowed the Board to test his account.

[2018] NIQB 20 [2018] NIQB 20

A decision of the Department of Justice and Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland revoking a prisoner’s release on licence was not vitiated by irrationality where the recall to prison was plainly within the range of reasonable responses open to the official making that decision. The Department considered that the prisoner’s refusal to comply with electronic tagging requirements meant that the risk of his causing harm to the public had increased significantly, so that the test under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 art.28(2)(b) had been met.