There was no jurisdiction under the Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.5 to make a costs order in respect of the costs of successfully opposing an application for a production order. Nor was it possible to construe the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 s.19 as conferring a general discretion to make a costs order in favour of a person who was not a party to criminal proceedings so as to allow a costs order to be made in respect of an application for a production order.
Two individuals, who had admitted to being in contempt of court by publishing online information purporting to the identity one of James Bulger’s killers, were sentenced to twelve months and eight months’ imprisonment respectively, suspended for two years. The court made clear that had it not been for their strong personal mitigation, immediate prison sentences would have been imposed.
A committal order was quashed because of several procedural failings made by the judge at the committal proceedings which deprived the offender of safeguards designed to ensure a fair hearing. Specifically, the judge had failed to adjourn the proceedings to allow the offender to obtain legal aid and representation, failed to advise of his right to remain silent and failed to warn of the risk of self-incrimination prior to giving evidence.
A defendant in civil proceedings was ordered to disclose documents given to it by the Serious Fraud Office which the SFO had obtained during a criminal investigation pursuant to its powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 s.2.
A County Court judge had failed to follow the correct procedure under CPR Pt 81 in committing a claimant for contempt of court following his disregard of warnings not to discuss his evidence during an overnight adjournment when under cross-examination.