The claimant’s action against the Ministry of the Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for damages for alleged torture and unlawful imprisonment in Saudi Arabia was struck out on the grounds of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978.

It would be contrary to the exercise of the statutory power and unrealistic to expect the home secretary to investigate each statement relied on to issue a certificate under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s.21 with a view to deciding whether circumstances in which the statement was obtained involved torture, thereby breaching European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.3.

[2004] EWCA Civ 1123

Where evidence before a parole board came from a source who would be at risk were his identity to be disclosed to the prisoner, the board had an inherent power to devise procedures to protect that source, including a direction that his evidence should be withheld from the prisoner or from his legal representatives. The board also had the power, through the specially appointed advocate procedure, to mitigate any unfairness to the prisoner caused by the withholding of such evidence.

[2004] EWCA Civ 1031

A blanket policy of retention and use by the police of DNA samples and fingerprint evidence after a suspect had been cleared of the offence that gave rise to the collection of such evidence was compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8 and Art.14.

[2004] UKHL 39

The rule of absolute immunity from suit applied to complaints made to an employment tribunal about unlawful discriminatory conduct in the course of an internal police disciplinary hearing.

[2004] EWCA Civ 943

The claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review had been premature as its proposed challenge to the Environment Agency’s decision, to prosecute the claimants for alleged breaches concerning its waste management, had to be determined after investigation of the facts and in the context of the evidence. It would not be appropriate to attempt, by judicial review, on incomplete facts, to intervene in the progress of the prosecution.

[2004] EWHC 1417 (Admin)

The appellant had failed to follow the correct procedure in seeking to cross-examine the complainant in a prosecution for rape either on the ground of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41(3) and (5) or as a result of falling outside the restriction imposed by s.41 of the Act in relation to questioning about a complainant’s sexual history.

[2004] EWCA Crim 1393

Where there was a reasonable justification for the difference in treatment in relation to parole of the appellant, who was serving a sentence of over 15 years, and his chosen comparators, who were serving sentences of less than 15 years, there could be no contravention of European Convention on Human Rights Art.5 when read with Art.14.

[2004] EWCA Civ 514

There was no inherent jurisdiction or power under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 enabling a court to make a special measures direction allowing a defendant who was a child to give evidence by live video link, where she was too scared testify in the physical presence of her co-defendants.

[2004] EWHC 715 (Admin)

The appellant’s conviction following a Naval Court Martial was unsafe as the judge advocate was a serving naval officer and not a civilian.

[2004] EWCA Crim 621

The solicitor of a person alleged to have driven while disqualified could be compelled to give evidence as to whether that person had had a disqualification order made against them if the solicitor had been in court when the disqualification order was made.

[2004] EWHC 362 (Admin)

Where judicial review proceedings were initiated in the High Court following the administration of a police caution, the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the High Court. The consequent inability of the appellant to bring such an appeal was not a breach of his human rights.

[2004] EWCA Civ 199

Decisions of the secretary of state that refused early release of long-term prisoners subject to deportation orders, without any independent review of their cases by the parole board, violated Art.14 European Convention on Human Rights, in relation to a matter falling within Art.5.

[2004] EWHC 78 (Admin)

A conviction under s.5 Public Order Act 1986 was, in the circumstances, an interference with the appellant’s human rights under Art.9 and Art.10 European Convention on Human Rights that was justified by the pressing social need to show tolerance to others. It had not been perverse for Wimbourne Magistrates court to hold that the words used on a sign in public were insulting within the meaning of s.5 Public Order Act 1986 and the appellant had no defence of reasonable conduct.

[2004] EWHC 69 (Admin)

The parole board’s decision to continue to detain a prisoner who had been subject to recall during an extended licence period was a decision which attracted the safeguards of Art.5 European Convention on Human Rights and therefore the detention had to be consistent with the objectives of the original sentence and would be subject to regular reviews compliant with Art.5.4

[2003] EWCA Civ 1845

A parole board had not erred by deciding that there were exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of a specially appointed advocate to represent a prisoner in respect of sensitive material to be relied on by the secretary of state in a parole review.

[2003] EWHC 3120 (Admin)

The circumstances of the search and seizure of items without warrant from premises, in the context of extradition proceedings, fell outside the common law powers of search and seizure prescribed by authority.

The discretionary decisions of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to seize and disclose large numbers of documents had been lawful although insufficient time was given for the claimant to make representations against disclosure to a government department.

[2003] EWHC 3002 (Admin)

On a proper construction of the legislation, the magistrates’ court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Swainmote to hear summons’ alleging breaches of the Byelaws of the New Forest.

[2003] EWHC 3253 (Admin)

The fact that a small number of people could be identified as the only ones capable of having committed the offence could, in principle, afford reasonable grounds for suspecting each of them of the offence. The reasonableness of a police officer’s decision to arrest had to be considered bearing in mind the effect on the suspects’ right to liberty under Art.5 European Convention on Human Rights.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1844

The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s appeal against a ruling made by the trial judge at a preparatory hearing, as that ruling brought the proceedings to an end and was not within the ambit of s.29(2) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

[2003] EWCA Crim 3642

The National Probation Service had erred in failing to consider the rights of the applicant when considering him for early release on licence by deciding that a third party should be informed of the applicant’s conviction.

[2003] EWHC 2910 (Admin)

Where a witness statement, significantly different from evidence given, was not disclosed until after the verdicts the conviction could not be regarded as safe as the jury could have reached a different conclusion if the witness had been cross examined on the discrepancy.

[2003] EWCA Crim 3628

Juries chosen on a discriminatory basis in accordance with s.19 Supreme Court Ordinance could not be said to fulfil the requirement of an “impartial” court or authority in s.8(8) Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969.

[2003] UKPC 76

Whether a prisoner’s 15 month delay between parole board reviews was excessive had not been satisfactorily determined on refusal of his application for judicial review, but his appeal was dismissed as he had now been released and had claimed no relief.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1561

The Home Secretary was under a duty to provide sex offender treatment programmes for prisoners qualified by the extent of available resources and subject only to a public law duty to act rationally.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1522

The procedure under Sch.3 para.4 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 whereby an unwilling witness was forced to give a deposition should always be conducted in open court unless there were powerful reasons for deciding otherwise. Such a witness could not refuse to answer questions in reliance on a mere assertion, on the advice of a solicitor, that to answer any questions might incriminate her, rather, such assertions had to be tested by the court.

[2003] EWHC 2697 (Admin)

Section 44(4)(b) Terrorism Act 2000 expressly envisaged that a stop and search authorisation could cover the whole of a police area. There were no grounds on which the subject authorisation could be set aside. The conduct of the Metropolitan police officers who stopped and searched the claimants did not entitle those claimants to a public law remedy.

[2003] EWHC 2545 (Admin)

A Magistrates’ Court had erred in holding that there was no case for the respondent to answer in respect of an alleged statutory nuisance and breach of an abatement notice in circumstances where there was clear evidence from environmental health officers that the nuisance had been committed.

[2003] EWHC 2698 (Admin)

In the circumstances there was no reason for the public interest immunity hearing to be inter partes, and there was no need for the judge to request appointment of special independent counsel as the request had been made prematurely: he had not looked at the material in the light of the issues and might have ordered it to be disclosed. Even taking into account the decision in Evans and Lewis v United Kingdom (2003) LTL 23/7/2003 it would only be in exceptional cases that there was a need for independent counsel to be instructed to protect a defendant’s interests.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2847

A person acted recklessly within the meaning of s.1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to: (i) a circumstance when he was aware of a risk that it existed or would exist; and (ii) a result when he was aware of a risk that it would occur and it was in the circumstances known to him unreasonable to take the risk.

[2003] UKHL 50

The defendant’s right under Art.6 European Convention on Human Rights had not been infringed by police failure to maintain records of any threats, offers of immunity from prosecution and other inducements that were or might have been offered to key prosecution witnesses, all of whom were either accomplices or lesser participants tainted by the offences.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2667

Where there had been a breach of the Dutch Criminal Code by the Dutch authorities in relation to a search of hotel premises, the evidence found was admissible in English proceedings as there was no breach of Art.8 European Convention on Human Rights and, even if there had been, there was no resultant unfairness to the defendant.

[2003] EWCA Crim 3092

A defendant who failed to satisfy a confiscation order was entitled to have enforcement proceedings by commitment to prison determined within a reasonable time under Art.6(1) European Convention on Human Rights.

[2003] EWHC 2294 (Admin)

Where a jury inadvertently returned verdicts on two counts arising in the alternative, it was proper for the conviction for the lesser offence to be quashed. On the facts of the case, police had not acted in bad faith when interviewing witnesses for the defence on suspicion of conspiracy with the defendant to pervert the course of justice.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2943

The youth court had been correct to lift reporting restrictions upon the conviction of the appellant in respect of proceedings that had commenced prior to the appellant attaining the age of 18 years but that were completed after he had attained the age of 18 years.

[2003] EWHC 2408 (Admin)

Appeals by young offenders against conviction and sentence for murder and conspiracy to rob. The second appellant’s conviction for murder was unsafe and was therefore quashed.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2428

A longer-than-normal sentence imposed under s.2(2)(b) Criminal Justice Act 1991 (re-enacted as s.80(2)(b) Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000) was a single determinate sentence and the product of a judicial decision, and was not subject to the requirements of periodic review under Art.5(4) European Convention on Human Rights.

[2003] UKHL 42

The appellants’ convictions for speeding offences would be set aside where they had not signed their notice forms under s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988 but the first appellant’s case would be remitted for rehearing.

[2003] EWHC 1586 (Admin)

Where a claimant’s licence was revoked and he was recalled to prison by way of written representations only there had been no breach of his rights under Art.5 and Art.6 European Convention on Human Rights and no oral hearing was required at common law unless the issue turned on the resolution of important facts.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1269

The appellant was entitled to a declaration that s.33 Criminal Justice Act 1991 was incompatible with his rights under art.7 European Convention on Human Rights in that he was subject to a heavier penalty as a result of the Act than he would have been at the time he committed the offences.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1130

During the conduct of a trial necessary and proportionate restrictions could be placed upon the conduct of the defence case and the identity of witnesses could be protected without the trial becoming unfair to the defendant.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2218

An order for an extended licence under s.86 Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was preventive not punitive, and the addition of such an order to a sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed before 1 October 1991 did not violate Art.7 European Convention on Human Rights.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2199

A criminal trial was conducted fairly notwithstanding the fact that foreign witnesses had been refused entry to the United Kingdom.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2167

A defendant had the right to free assistance of an interpreter at trial. Whilst it was preferable that the interpreter was registered, provided the interpreter was competent, the defendant’s rights under Art.6(3)(a) European Convention on Human Rights would not be infringed. The judge wrongly ruled that a co-accused had not waived privilege, however, on the facts, it did not render the conviction unsafe.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2346

The failure to provide the claimant with any education or training during periods of segregation, amounted to a breach of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 SI 2000/3371, but on the facts, there was no evidence to suggest that the conditions under which P was segregated amounted to a breach of either Art.3 or Art.8 European Convention on Human Rights.

[2003] EWHC 1963 (Admin)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department could not be construed as “a court” within the meaning in para.2(1) sch.2 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and therefore had had power to set a higher tariff than had originally been imposed following a conviction for murder after a re-trial. The secretary of state had not erred in taking into account the decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Anderson (2003) 1 AC 837 and forthcoming legislation when refusing to review the tariff of two life prisoners.

[2003] EWHC 1789 (Admin)

A coroner had an obligation to consider whether the State’s investigative duties under Art.2 European Convention on Human Rights had been complied with, and that obligation existed even if the Human Rights Act 1998 had not been in force at the date of the death. The coroner had erred in holding that there was no evidence upon which it could be argued that the police and local authority had failed to fulfil their investigative duties under Art.2.

[2003] EWHC 1721 (Admin)

The judge was entitled based on the evidence before him, to conclude that an offence of causing alarm or distress under s.5(1)(b) Public Order Act 1986 aggravated in the manner provided by s.28 and s.31 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by s.39 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) had been made out.

[2003] EWHC 1564 (Admin)

Where a judge hearing an application for permission to apply for judicial review had heard detailed arguments, any judge hearing the main application would require significant justification before taking a different view from that of the judge granting permission; if the judge at the main hearing came to the conclusion that there was good reason to allow argument on an additional ground, permission should be granted.

[2003] EWCA Civ 1014