Current Awareness

Regina v Brooks – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, confiscation, conspiracy, drug offences, drug trafficking, law reports, proceeds of crime by sally

Regina v Brooks [2016] EWCA Crim 44

‘Following the seizure of a large consignment of cocaine by the Irish navy, the defendant was convicted in the United Kingdom of conspiracy to import drugs and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 the recorder ruled that the defendant had a criminal lifestyle for the purposes of section 75 of the 2002 Act. He assessed the defendant’s benefit as being a little over £3·6m, comprising the value of the drugs at just under £3m and a 50% interest in a Spanish property valued at £296,000, and held that the recoverable amount was the same as the benefit figure on the basis that, although the defendant’s identifiable assets amounted to just under £1,400, he had undisclosed assets which he had failed to show were less than his benefit. Accordingly, the recorder made a confiscation order in the sum of the benefit figure. The defendant appealed against the order on the grounds that the recorder had erred in (i) including the value of the drugs in the benefit figure on the basis that the defendant had purchased them or contributed to their purchase, when there was no evidence that the defendant had done so; (ii) including the value of the drugs in the recoverable amount, when they had been seized by the Irish authorities; and (iii) including the value of the property in the recoverable amount, when under Spanish law the defendant’s partner was the legal and equitable owner.’

WLR Daily, 10th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Roberts (Mark) and others- WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, criminal justice, dangerous offenders, detention, human rights, interpretation, judicial review, jurisdiction, law reports, proportionality, sentencing, time limits by sally

Regina v Roberts (Mark) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 71

‘In each of the 13 applications before the court, the applicants applied for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment or detention for public protection (“IPP”)), imposed between 2005 and 2008 under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Before the sentence of IPP was amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the court was required to make the assumption that an offender was dangerous if he had been convicted on an earlier occasion of a specified offence, unless it was unreasonable to do so. Where he was found to be dangerous, and over 18, the court was required to pass a sentence of IPP or life imprisonment; the 2003 Act removed all discretion from the court once it was found that the offender was dangerous. All the applicants had either been detained in custody long after the expiry of the minimum term or had been recalled for breach of licence. The applicants submitted (1) that whatever might have been the position at the time the sentences of IPP were passed, the Court of Appeal had power under section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to pass sentences that, in the light of what had happened over the intervening years, now would be the proper sentence; (2) the Court of Appeal should reconsider the assessments made by sentencing judges in the light of R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864; [2006] 1 WLR 2509, and (3) a time could and had been reached when the length of the imprisonment was so excessive and disproportionate compared to the index criminal offence that it could amount to inhuman treatment under article 3 or arbitrary detention under article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That was because the detention no longer had any meaningful link to the index offence. A much delayed review of a sentencing decision could therefore be a mechanism the court could employ to avoid a breach of those Convention Rights. As the period now served by each of the applicants was so much longer than any conceivable determinate sentence would have required, the continued detention amounted to preventative detention and was therefore arbitrary. ‘

WLR Daily, 18th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain and others) v Charity Commission – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in charities, Charity Commission, data protection, documents, human rights, inquiries, judicial review, law reports, privacy, proportionality, sexual offences by sally

Regina (Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain and others) v Charity Commission [2016] EWCA Civ 154

‘Following three trials of former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses’s congregations on charges of historic sex abuse the Charity Commission decided to initiate a statutory inquiry relating to a leading Jehovah’s Witness charity’s safeguarding policy regarding vulnerable beneficiaries in particular children, under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, and to order the charity to produce a wide range of documents, under section 52 of the Act, even though none of those accused was connected with the charity. .The applicants, the charity and its trustees, sought judicial review of those decisions, on the grounds that (i) the commission had acted disproportionately by commencing an inquiry the scope of which was vague and undefined and by interfering with the applicants’ Convention rights, and had thereby breached its duty to act fairly so that the decision was irrational; and (ii) the scope of the production order was disproportionate in that information was sought of a personal and sensitive nature, within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and was furthermore in breach of the Convention rights of individuals affected. The judge in refusing permission to proceed with the judicial review clain held that the applicants had an effective statutory remedy by appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Charity) against a decision to initiate an inquiry, and that any complaint relating to the breadth of a production order could be dealt with before that tribunal.’

WLR Daily, 15th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Swindon Borough Council v Webb (trading as Protective Coatings) – WLR Daily

Posted March 30th, 2016 in appeals, civil procedure rules, committals, contempt of court, early release, law reports, local government, proportionality by sally

Swindon Borough Council v Webb (trading as Protective Coatings) [2016] EWCA Civ 152

‘Whilst hesitating to be prescriptive in a matter where the liberty of the subject is at stake, and where the circumstances are likely to be infinitely various, the procedure provided by CPR r 81.31 should be followed where a contemnor seeks his discharge before the expiry of his sentence (para 23).’

WLR Daily, 16th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Manchester sex workers’ rights case collapses after five years – The Guardian

Posted March 30th, 2016 in bail, drug offences, evidence, health, human rights, miscarriage of justice, news, police, prosecutions, prostitution by sally

‘A court case that would have tested the right of sex workers to offer services together in brothels to protect themselves has collapsed after a police officer refused to give evidence.’