s.2

A mother failed to establish that a police detective had made a slanderous statement about her while investigating her allegations that her child had been sexually abused by a family member. Although the detective had told the child’s social worker that the mother had lied during a conversation with him, the transfer of that statement onto the child’s medical notes was not likely to cause the mother any reputational harm of the serious nature required by the Defamation Act 2013 s.1. In any event, the statement was protected by qualified privilege.

[2017] EWHC 1650 (QB)

A European arrest warrant which sufficiently particularised offences was valid for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2 The court was entitled to take the information provided on the warrant at face value and it was not its role, given the principle of mutual respect, to hinder extradition requests.

An individual had been “convicted” for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2 where their detention in a secure hospital had been ordered after criminal proceedings against them were discontinued on account of their mental illness.

[2017] EWHC 167 (Admin)

An accusation European arrest warrant had not met the requirements of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(4)(c) as it was not possible for the requested person to know the degree of participation he was alleged to have had in the 21 offences mentioned.

[2016] EWHC 3518 (Admin)

The court refused permission to appeal against a conviction for murder where the defendant had relied on diminished responsibility. The reverse burden of proof in respect of diminished responsibility in the Homicide Act 1957 s.2(2) did not infringe ECHR art.6.

[2016] EWCA Crim 2043

Offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 s.92 extended not just to counterfeit goods but also to “grey goods”, namely goods where the trade mark had been affixed with the proprietor’s consent, but where the proprietor had not consented to their sale, distribution or possession by others.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1617

The court reiterated that there was a “very high hurdle” to overcome when seeking to challenge a decision of investigators of the Serious Fraud Office. While none of the authorities precluded a challenge, they lent no encouragement to the bringing of any such challenge.

[2016] EWHC 2471 (Admin)

The court granted a request from the US for the extradition of a UK citizen accused of unlawfully accessing computers used by US Federal agencies and private companies and of misusing the data obtained. Although the subject of the request suffered from Asperger Syndrome and his ECHR art.8 rights were clearly engaged, extradition was proportionate and compatible with his Convention rights given the extremely serious charges and the fact that US prison medical facilities were such that his needs would be comprehensively met.

The court refused a mother’s application for a Norwich Pharmacal order against the police to obtain material arising from a fraud investigation involving a personal development coach who had provided counselling to her daughter. Although the mother alleged that the coach had poisoned her daughter’s mind against her, she had no cause of action against the coach. The application also failed because the police had been investigating potential criminal conduct against women counselled by the coach, not against the mother.

[2016] EWHC 2214 (QB)

When a designated person appealed against an asset-freezing order under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 s.26, the Treasury had to justify the order it had made. The court concluded that designation had been justified to prevent the appellant providing financial assistance to a proscribed organisation, but the renewal of the designation was not justified when, by the time of renewal, different circumstances applied.

[2016] EWHC 2039 (Admin)

A “conviction” European arrest warrant would be not invalidated by the fact that it recorded that the requested person had been sentenced to imprisonment but did not give particulars of domestic warrants issued to secure his surrender to custody.

[2016] UKSC 36

The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 s.2(1) provided compensation only for physical damage to property and not for consequential losses such as loss of profits or rent.

[2016] UKSC 18

The Court of Appeal rejected a contention that, in order for the actus reus of an offence contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1)(a) to be made out, there had to be an invitation by a defendant to others to join him in providing practical or tangible support to a proscribed organisation. On a proper interpretation of that provision, it had to be determined whether a defendant knowingly used words which in fact invited support for that organisation. That broader interpretation was not incompatible with rights under the ECHR or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1436

The Crown was not bound by the Health Act 2006 Pt 1 Ch.1 because, as a general rule, the Crown was not bound by a statute unless bound expressly or by necessary implication. For that reason, state-run prisons were not obliged to implement the prohibition on smoking in certain places.

[2016] EWCA Civ 125

The definition of “substantially enclosed” under the Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006 reg.2 produced a 50% rule; a roofed structure would be “substantially enclosed” where the openings constituted 50% or less of the perimeter under the roof. It was not concerned with a fine calculation of the actual wall area standing and its openings.

The court considered the requirement in the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(6)(b) for European arrest warrants to contain “particulars of conviction”, particularly where sentences for other offences had been merged into the sentence for the extradition offence. Where the total sentence seemed to be longer than the sentence which the extradition offence would attract, and where other offences had not been particularised, that was a strong indicator that the warrant would not be valid.

[2016] EWHC 124 (Admin)

An unmarried couple who lived together in a relationship akin to marriage were not entitled to benefit from the Criminal Law Act 1977 s.2(2) which exempted spouses and civil partners from liability for conspiracy. There were good reasons why a court trying a charge of conspiracy should be able to rely on the certainty of the terms “spouse” and “civil partner” and not have to inquire closely into the nature of personal relationships of alleged conspirators. The criminal law should not turn on such vagaries.

[2016] EWCA Crim 24

The Court of Appeal determined that prior to the enactment of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 it had been a criminal offence in the UK under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 to corrupt the agent of a foreign principal or a foreign body.

[2016] EWCA Crim 2

A district judge had been entitled to find that a requested person convicted in absentia and with a right to a retrial should be extradited to Belgium for fraud offences. The wording of the warrant made clear that it was a conviction warrant, which complied with the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(6), and extradition was not disproportionate under ECHR art.8.

Even though a prisoner had not been released 18 months after the Parole Board had given a direction which was intended to result in his release on licence, the delay had not been caused by any breach of statutory duty or discrimination.

[2015] EWHC 3245 (Admin)

The Crown’s rejection of a defendant’s guilty plea to an alternative offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.20, prior to offering no evidence at trial on the substantive s.18 count on the indictment, rendered a purported conviction for the s.20 offence a nullity. A writ of venire de novo was issued as the trial court had proceeded on the basis of a fundamental error regarding the plea entered, resulting in a sentence being imposed where there had been no valid conviction.

[2015] EWCA Crim 837

An extraditee’s extradition to face offences equating to theft and blackmail was disproportionate due to a delay of two years and nine months in issuing an European arrest warrant. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the offending, that delay was a significant period of time in the continuation and the strengthening of the extraditee’s private life.

[2015] EWHC 2067 (Admin)

The Serious Fraud Office would be required, under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 s.19, to pay a large proportion of the costs incurred by six defendants in successfully contesting a charge of conspiracy to defraud: the Serious Fraud Office had put its case in four different ways, yet on each occasion it had failed to conduct a proper legal analysis of the case.

[2015] EWHC 263 (QB)

An appellant’s extradition to France was not an abuse of process where a second conviction warrant had been issued following his conviction in absentia. The court would only exercise its implied abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition cases where no other bars to extradition were available, there was cogent evidence that the judicial authority had usurped the statutory regime, and the abuse of process would cause prejudice to an appellant.

[2015] EWHC 149 (Admin)

An individual had been incorrectly convicted of a historic offence of rape against a family member because, at the relevant time, anal penetration did not constitute that offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.1. It was appropriate to substitute an alternative conviction for indecent assault, as the facts fell within the scope of s.14(1) of the 1956 Act, and the test set out in R. v Graham (Hemamali Krishna) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 302 was satisfied.

[2014] EWCA Crim 2362

A conviction European Arrest Warrant had complied with the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(6)(c) even though it had not provided the details of two domestic arrest warrants. The EAW had stated the jurisdictional fact which provided the proper basis for its issue, namely the Polish court’s judgment imposing aggregate sentences, and the domestic arrest warrants were immaterial to its validity as they had simply been issued to secure the respondent subject’s surrender.

Magistrates had erred in dismissing the appeal of a convicted sex offender against a decision of a Chief Constable not to end the offender’s notification requirements.

[2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin)

In extradition proceedings, domestic courts should be extremely reluctant to evaluate the competing arguments about the local law of limitation in the requesting state. The circumstances where evaluation might be justified would be truly exceptional.

[2014] EWHC 2623 (Admin)

The Police Force did not have a duty to inform a former police constable’s new employer that, whilst in the force, the constable had taken long periods of sick-leave and had an unresolved gross misconduct charge against him. To provide that information would breach data protection principles and his legitimate expectations.

[2014] EWHC 1965 (QB)

The court reiterated that when directing the jury as to what constituted being “substantially impaired” for the purpose of establishing diminished responsibility within the meaning of the Homicide Act 1957 s.2(1)(b), judges had to refuse to provide any further explanation of the term “substantial”. If asked by the jury for further help, they were to give a direction of the kind adopted in R. v Simcox Times, February 25, 1964.

[2014] EWCA Crim 748

A fine of £50,000 imposed on a company following its plea of guilty to failing to discharge the duty imposed by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 s.2(1) was justified. Although there was no evidence of the company putting profit before safety or any wilful disregard of safety procedures or warnings, a significant fine was called for because there was a total absence of any consideration of safety procedures, risk assessments, training or supervision.

[2014] EWCA Crim 533

Read as a whole, a European arrest warrant which sought the surrender of an individual “for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence…” was a valid accusation warrant. It sought the individual’s extradition so that he could be prosecuted, and not merely investigated, for the offences it specified.

[2013] EWHC 4297 (Admin)

A European arrest warrant issued by a ministry of justice in respect of a convicted person could be regarded as issued by a judicial authority for the purposes of Decision 2002/584 and the Extradition Act 2003 Pt 1 if the ministry only issued the warrant at the request of, and by way of endorsement of a decision to issue a warrant by, the court responsible for the sentence or some other person or body properly regarded as a judicial authority responsible for its execution. A ministry issuing a warrant of its own motion or at the request of a non-judicial authority could not be regarded as a judicial authority.

[2013] UKSC 71

A conviction for possession of an article for use in fraud contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 s.6(1) was quashed, where the judge had wrongly directed the jury that it should convict if it was sure that a petrol can found in the defendant’s possession six months after committing offences of fraudulently obtaining petrol had been used for the purposes of fraud. Section 6(1) was intended to prevent the possession of articles intended for present or future use, not those which had been used in the past.

[2013] EWCA Crim 2278

An appellant’s convictions for fraud were quashed as a judge’s direction to the jury had not made it clear whether the test for guilt in terms of an accused’s knowledge was subjective or objective.

[2013] EWCA Crim 2046

In order to give effect to the expression “causes … death … by driving”, an unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured driver charged with an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.3ZB had to be shown to have done something other than simply putting his vehicle on the road so that it was there to be struck. Some kind of fault in the manner of his driving was a necessary element of the offence.

[2013] UKSC 56

The circumstances in which a 15-year-old girl had been found in the company of a 20-year-old man were sufficient to enable a jury to infer that the man had detained her within the meaning of the Child Abduction Act 1984 s.2(1)(b). The fact that the man had previously been served with a warning notice in respect of an identical offence in relation to the same girl was relevant, probative and admissible.

[2013] EWCA Crim 1639

The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 did not prevent the Serious Fraud Office from giving disclosure of documents received from third parties in response to notices issued under s.2 of the Act or from permitting inspection of those documents.

[2013] EWHC 2128 (QB)

The Criminal Law Amendment Act (Northern Ireland) 1923 s.4 was to be interpreted as not requiring proof of the offender’s mens rea as to the age of a girl of whom he had had unlawful carnal knowledge. Historically, the policy approach of protecting younger females by ensuring that no defence of reasonable belief was available had been unswerving.

[2013] UKSC 43

A European arrest warrant, which was ambiguous as to whether it related to one or two offences, was valid for the purposes of extradition where further information from the requesting authorities had led a district judge to conclude that the warrant related to one offence only. The warrant was not an abuse of process because the information it contained would not have had an effect on the proper operation of the statutory scheme that would have led to unfairness.

[2013] EWHC 1515 (Admin)

There was no justification for departing from the decision in R. v Lambert (Steven) [2002] Q.B. 1112 that the reverse burden of proof applicable to the partial defence of diminished responsibility was not incompatible with the presumption of innocence in the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(2).

[2013] EWCA Crim 475

Although there was conflicting authority on the issue, an extraditee had an entitlement to raise a point on appeal, even though the point could have been, but had not been, raised earlier at the extradition hearing.

[2013] EWHC 1745 (Admin)

The decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to allow extradition of a United Kingdom citizen to Spain, where he had been charged with co-defendants who had already been found guilty of massive fraud, had been reasonable. The proceedings against him regarding offences committed 22 years earlier had been brought within the Spanish limitation period, and extradition was not unjust or oppressive.

[2013] EWHC 813 (Admin)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the exercise of her discretion under the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 s.1 as to whether to serve a foreign judgment on a national of that country residing in the United Kingdom, should have considered evidence showing that it had been obtained in flagrant disregard of justice. Further, the facts of the case met the high test required for engagement of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6.

[2013] EWHC 663 (Admin)

A company which had a contract to provide interpreters for court hearings was not guilty of serious misconduct when due to an internal error it failed to provide an interpreter for a sentencing hearing, and therefore it should not have been ordered to pay costs under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 s.19B. A case of serious misconduct might arise if there was evidence that non-attendance occurred where there had been a failure to remedy a defect in administrative systems that had caused non-attendance in the past or where a particular interpreter had failed several times to attend.

[2013] EWCA Crim 326

In order to rely on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s.1(3)(a), which exempted liability for a course of conduct “pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime”, the alleged harasser would have to show that he had acted rationally.

[2013] UKSC 17

The court had correctly directed itself that in order for a defendant to be convicted of an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 s.4(1) the prosecution had to establish that the defendant knew or ought to have reasonably known that his act or failure to act would cause an animal to suffer and that the suffering was unnecessary.

[2013] EWHC 500 (Admin)

The Extradition Act 2003 s.2(6)(b) and s.2(6)(e) did not require a European Arrest Warrant to include details of an offence which resulted in the activation of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for which a person’s extradition was being sought.

[2013] EWHC 433 (Admin)

A European arrest warrant was valid for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(6)(e) even if it specified a number of individual convictions and sentences which, after the issue of the warrant, were aggregated by a criminal court in the requesting state. A warrant that was valid upon issue could not become invalid over time.

[2013] UKSC 2

The convictions of an Islamic bookshop manager of seven offences of dissemination, by distribution, of “terrorist publications” contrary to the Terrorism Act 2006 s.2(1)(a) and s.2(2) were unsafe and were quashed. The judge had erred in permitting the prosecution, for the purpose of showing that books, articles, videos and DVDs would be understood as encouraging acts of terrorism under s.2(3), to adduce in evidence the possession by named terrorist offenders of material similar or identical to that disseminated by the defendant.

[2012] EWCA Crim 2820