The claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review had been premature as its proposed challenge to the Environment Agency’s decision, to prosecute the claimants for alleged breaches concerning its waste management, had to be determined after investigation of the facts and in the context of the evidence. It would not be appropriate to attempt, by judicial review, on incomplete facts, to intervene in the progress of the prosecution.
The appellant had failed to follow the correct procedure in seeking to cross-examine the complainant in a prosecution for rape either on the ground of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41(3) and (5) or as a result of falling outside the restriction imposed by s.41 of the Act in relation to questioning about a complainant’s sexual history.
Where there was a reasonable justification for the difference in treatment in relation to parole of the appellant, who was serving a sentence of over 15 years, and his chosen comparators, who were serving sentences of less than 15 years, there could be no contravention of European Convention on Human Rights Art.5 when read with Art.14.
There was no inherent jurisdiction or power under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 enabling a court to make a special measures direction allowing a defendant who was a child to give evidence by live video link, where she was too scared testify in the physical presence of her co-defendants.
The appellant’s conviction following a Naval Court Martial was unsafe as the judge advocate was a serving naval officer and not a civilian.