The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission had no standing to seek a declaration that abortion law in Northern Ireland was incompatible with ECHR art.3 and art.8 because it had not instituted proceedings by identifying any unlawful act or any actual or potential victim. Although the Supreme Court therefore had no jurisdiction to make a declaration of incompatibility, it considered that the current law was disproportionate and incompatible with art.8 insofar as it prohibited abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and where pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.
An individual who had been made the subject of a stop and search pursuant to the Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.7 para.18(1)(c), and had refused to provide the PIN and password for his mobile phone and laptop computer, had been validly convicted under that provision. Although the magistrate had accepted that his refusal was to protect the confidentiality of others, he had not said so when he was stopped, and did not do so until after the offence was complete and he had been arrested.
A conviction for theft had to be quashed because there had been no “appropriation” of property belonging to another. Although a care home manager had submitted falsely inflated claims for overtime and payment in lieu of holiday entitlement, thus reducing her employer’s bank balance, she had no control over the bank account and had not assumed the owner’s rights with regard to the bank balance. The offence charged should have been one of fraud by false representation.
Activities which were not completed or attempted terrorist acts, and which could not be shown to have led to specific completed or attempted terrorist acts by others, could satisfy the threshold under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (United Nations) art.1F(c) for exclusion from reliance on the Convention.
In judicial review proceedings, it was determined that the High Court was not the appropriate forum in which to litigate a disclosure dispute relating to a deferred prosecution agreement; there were adequate alternative remedies in the Crown Court. However, if it transpired that the Crown Court did not have the power to determine the matter fairly, then it was possible that the High Court could permit a judicial review to proceed in order to fill a procedural lacuna in the system that otherwise risked giving rise to injustice.