The court had jurisdiction to make a declaration on a closed material application under the Justice and Security Act 2013 s.6 in judicial review proceedings challenging a decision not to prosecute. Although the case was not an appeal “in” criminal proceedings, since its outcome would not decide criminal liability, the words “criminal cause or matter” in s.6(11) were to be interpreted broadly.
RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL
A district judge had been entitled to refuse to adjourn a part-heard trial on the basis of evidence from a GP which suggested that the defendants were suffering from stress, depression and insomnia following the suicide of a co-defendant. It had not been unreasonable or incorrect to conclude that the medical evidence did not demonstrate unfitness to stand trial.
There was no real risk that a requested person’s extradition to Brazil to face trial for two offences of murder would breach his rights under ECHR art.3 or art.6.
In refusing conjoined applications for permission to appeal against convictions for murder, the court considered a number of issues including the adequacy of joint enterprise directions in the light of R. v Jogee (Ameen Hassan)  UKSC 8, the procedures for trials of young defendants in the Crown Court, and the compatibility of mandatory sentences of detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with ECHR art.3 and art.5
The requirement for a defendant in a criminal trial to serve a defence statement was consistent with the Constitution of St Lucia and the right to a fair trial.