B was convicted in his absence in Slovakia. At the Magistrate’s court level B was then discharged on the European Arrest Warrant on the grounds that his only chance of a retrial was if facts or evidence unknown at the time of the conviction were to emerge. This was upheld on appeal. The Judicial Authority was not assisted by the submission that Art.6 has been incorporated into the Slovakian Criminal Code. Appeal allowed.
|
The Magistrates court had been entitled to order the extradition of a man accused of sexual assault. There were no reasons to find that his extradition would have been oppressive or unjust by reason of the passage of time, or for concluding that on return he faced a real risk of being subjected to treatment by the police which would breach Art.3. Appeal dismissed.
|
Whilst the risk of suicide if sufficiently well established could form the basis of proper arguments that return might lead to breaches of Art.3, in this case there was insufficient material in the psychiatrist’s report to justify such a conclusion. The report merely expressed concerns in relation to harm, which was not sufficient. Appeal dismissed.
|
An EAW issued in relation to an individual charge charged with conspiracy to facilitate unlawful entry of illegal immigrants was sufficiently particularised for the purposes of section 2(4)(c) in relation to the offence circumstances, the person central to the conspiracy and M’s contact with that person. Appeal dismissed.
|
When ruling on a submission of no case to answer to a charge of murder, the Eastern Caribbean CA had erred by failing to apply the test of determining what inferences a reasonable jury properly directed might draw, as distinct from those which the court itself thought could or could not be drawn.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Dismissal/ambiguous resignation The Tribunal failed to make clear findings about the date of termination or the manner in which the employment contract was terminated.
|
Unfair Dismissal - Reasonableness of dismissal This appeal held that there was no error in Tribunal’s conclusions as to fairness of dismissal for refusing to comply with a redeployment clause.
|
Jurisdictional Points - 2002 Act and pre-action requirements This appeal held that a claim for detriment under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does require a grievance letter to launch proceedings. Schedule 2, paragraph 15, Employment Act 2002 only applies to the protected disclosures provision in Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
|
Practice and Procedure - Restricted Reporting Order Restricted Reporting Order relating to allegations of sexual misconduct – Whether Tribunal entitled to vary order in order to permit naming of Claimants against the objection of the alleged perpetrators? Held: (a) that there were sufficient grounds to justify reconsideration by the Tribunal, notwithstanding a previous order prohibiting the naming of the Claimants - Hart v English Heritage [2006] ICR 655 considered; (b) that it was in ...
|
Allegations against a dentist’s misuse of dental instruments for personal hygiene while vague in respect of the charges were clear in terms of the behaviour alleged. As even isolated instances would have been unacceptable. A fair hearing was still possible. Issues of delay and lack of specificity and any prejudice caused could be taken in to account by the tribunal. In considering these charges the tribunal had implicitly rejected part of the evidence of the witness on whose evidence some ...
|
| 1 |