Applications which sought to continue a claim for judicial review of the indeterminate licence regime in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 s.31A were a “criminal cause or matter” within the meaning of the Senior Courts Act 1981 s.18 and s.151, and the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) had no jurisdiction to entertain them.
A defendant who had been restrained by an injunction from publishing certain videos on his YouTube channel and had been found to be in contempt of court for continuing to publish them and was given a suspended prison sentence, was in contempt of court by publishing further similar videos and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.
Costs on the indemnity basis were awarded against an individual who had brought a private prosecution in the magistrates’ court but failed to comply with the duty of candour and had engaged in unreasonable conduct in prosecuting the litigation.
The court refused to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order to an investment firm which was contemplating the private prosecution of two individuals it suspected of using insider information to buy shares in a company shortly before a public announcement increased its share value. The matter was already the subject of civil proceedings where disclosure could be sought, and the firm’s suspicions had been referred to the CPS which was well placed to decide whether to investigate. A Norwich Pharmacal order was not necessary for the firm to obtain justice.
The Protocol and Good Practice Model: Disclosure of Information in Cases of Alleged Child Abuse and Linked Criminal and Care Directions Hearings was not working as it should and might need to be updated and improved.