A magistrates’ court’s decision to fix a trial date at which the prosecution expert could attend but the defence expert, whose report had been served in good time, could not was unfair. It was an exceptional case where the High Court should intervene at the pre-trial stage.
When dismissing an application for judicial review of a refusal to discharge an extradition order following delay in removal caused by administrative errors, the court considered the meaning of “reasonable cause” in the Extradition Act 2003 s.36(8) and the impact of decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court of Ireland.
A slaughterhouse had been under a strict obligation to sever a chicken’s main arteries systematically and a concomitant strict obligation to spare the bird avoidable pain under Regulation 1099/2009 art.3(1) and art.15(1), as enforced in the UK under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 reg.30(1)(g). Social concern regarding animal welfare meant that it was appropriate to displace the presumption that proof of mens rea was required.
A final offer made by the Legal Aid Agency in respect of counsel’s fees in a “Very High Cost (Crime) Case” had a sufficient public-law element to make it amenable to judicial review. The offer in the instant case was unlawful because, among other things, the Legal Aid Agency had failed to disclose its method of calculating the fees offered.
In its ordinary and natural meaning, “proceedings in a criminal cause or matter” in the Justice and Security Act 2013 s.6(11) included proceedings by way of judicial review of a decision made in a criminal cause, and nothing in the context or purpose of the legislation suggested a different meaning.