A mother failed to establish that a police detective had made a slanderous statement about her while investigating her allegations that her child had been sexually abused by a family member. Although the detective had told the child’s social worker that the mother had lied during a conversation with him, the transfer of that statement onto the child’s medical notes was not likely to cause the mother any reputational harm of the serious nature required by the Defamation Act 2013 s.1. In any event, the statement was protected by qualified privilege.
A European arrest warrant which sufficiently particularised offences was valid for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2 The court was entitled to take the information provided on the warrant at face value and it was not its role, given the principle of mutual respect, to hinder extradition requests.
An individual had been “convicted” for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2 where their detention in a secure hospital had been ordered after criminal proceedings against them were discontinued on account of their mental illness.
An accusation European arrest warrant had not met the requirements of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(4)(c) as it was not possible for the requested person to know the degree of participation he was alleged to have had in the 21 offences mentioned.
The court refused permission to appeal against a conviction for murder where the defendant had relied on diminished responsibility. The reverse burden of proof in respect of diminished responsibility in the Homicide Act 1957 s.2(2) did not infringe ECHR art.6.