The court stayed an appeal against an individual’s extradition to Lithuania to face a criminal trial. There was an international consensus that conditions in Lithuanian remand prisons were such that there was real risk of prisoners’ ECHR art.3 rights being violated, and the Lithuanian authorities were given the opportunity to provide a satisfactory assurance that the requested individual would not be remanded in custody pending trial in conditions that violated art.3.
PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
The Court of Appeal interpreted the term “persistent offender” in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s.117D(2)(c)(iii) concerning the deportation of foreign criminals. There was no rule that the status of “persistent offender”, once acquired, could never be lost. Further, there was no requirement, under the Immigration Rules para.398(c), to attach significant weight to the views of the secretary of state in relation to whether an individual was a persistent offender.
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.
The court determined to what extent the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.11(3) constrained an appellate court’s ability to replace a standard determinate sentence with a special custodial sentence for offenders of particular concern, an extended sentence, or orders under the Mental Health Act 1983. It also indicated that, in an exceptional case, the court could impose consecutive extended sentences so as to increase the potential licence period beyond the statutory maxima for the offences in question.
Application of the “multiple conviction rule” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 art.2A(3)(c) and the Police Act 1997 s.113A and s.113B, requiring disclosure of spent convictions, resulted in an interference with ECHR art.8 which was neither in accordance with the law nor necessary in a democratic society.