The court quashed a sentence of imprisonment for public protection imposed for wounding with intent and replaced it with hospital and restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.37 and s.41 respectively. The offender had served more than twice the minimum term ordered and the s.37 and s.41 regime was the most effective way of protecting the public and of monitoring his continued treatment.
PENOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGY
In appeals concerned with potential human rights infringements arising from overcrowding in Romanian prisons, the court emphasised the strong public interest in the effective operation of the system of extradition between Member States using the European arrest warrant system. It also indicated practice points to be observed by requesting judicial authorities seeking further information or assurances from requesting states and commented on the approach to be taken to fresh evidence obtained after the extradition hearing.
In an appeal against a deportation order upheld by the Upper Tribunal, the First-tier Tribunal had erred in holding that the appellant was not a persistent offender and therefore not a “foreign criminal” for the purposes of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s.117D. Although there had been gaps in his offending, the FTT should have focused on the overall picture and recognised that the absence of offending was partly due to his imprisonment. It had also erred in regarding the appellant’s association with a criminal gang as an example of his social and cultural integration, and in describing him as a “home grown criminal” in concluding that there were significant obstacles to reintegration in his country of origin.
The secretary of state had been entitled not to order the deportation under the Tariff-Expired Removal Scheme of an Irish national whose minimum term of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection had expired.
By failing to put in place measures to ensure that prison officers in a contracted-out prison were adequately trained in the strip searching of female and transgender prisoners, the secretary of state had breached his obligation to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that prisoners were protected from violations of their rights under ECHR art.3 and art.8.