A claimant failed to show that disclosure on enhanced criminal record certificates of an allegation of sexual assault of which he had been acquitted was disproportionate and inaccurate.
A conspiracy to defraud, which had only affected private investors in the UK and Canada, but which involved US shares and companies, was an appropriate case for trial in the US rather than in the UK, especially in circumstances where several of the co-conspirators were already on trial in the US after what had proved to be a lengthy and complicated investigation.
A Polish national’s extradition to serve a suspended one-year sentence for an offence of attempted theft of a car radio committed in 2010 would not amount to a disproportionate interference with his rights under ECHR art.8. Any hardship suffered by his partner would not be severe, and although the original offence was not very serious and had taken place many years ago, the Polish authorities had taken it seriously enough to impose a serious criminal sentence and request his return to serve it.
A final offer made by the Legal Aid Agency in respect of counsel’s fees in a “Very High Cost (Crime) Case” had a sufficient public-law element to make it amenable to judicial review. The offer in the instant case was unlawful because, among other things, the Legal Aid Agency had failed to disclose its method of calculating the fees offered.
The inclusion in an enhanced criminal record certificate of details of an individual’s acquittal on a charge of rape was a proportionate interference with that individual’s rights under ECHR art.8. In so deciding, the Supreme Court clarified when an appellate court could make a fresh determination as to proportionality, noted the lack of guidance to potential employers on how to treat ECRCs containing details of acquittals, and indicated that careful thought should be given to the value of disclosing allegations that had been tested in court and resulted in acquittal.