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.
RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
A university’s decision to exclude a student from a pharmacy degree course on the basis of non-disclosure of criminal convictions received as a juvenile was quashed. The university’s fitness to practise panel’s failure to take into account the student’s considerable mitigation meant that it had not struck a fair balance between his rights and the protection of the public.
A district judge had erred in finding that, on the evidence, it was beyond reasonable doubt that an extraditee was a fugitive and had deliberately absented himself from his trial in Poland. Further, fresh evidence regarding the extraditee’s son’s likely autism diagnosis meant that the balance under ECHR art.8 fell against ordering extradition.
A district judge had not erred in the weight he had attributed to the delays experienced in a Polish individual’s extradition proceedings. Although he had developed a private life in the UK in excess of ten years, the judge had not been wrong to order his extradition; private life attracted less weight than family life under the ECHR art.8.
Extrinsic evidence emanating from a judicial authority was capable of being admissible in extradition proceedings even if its alleged effect was to undermine clear statements in a European arrest warrant to the effect that decisions to charge and try had been made.