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.
|
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 ...
|
A sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of 7½ years imposed for wounding with intent was replaced with a determinate sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, as even though D had refused to see a psychiatrist and had not co-operated in a PSR, there had not been evidence to support a finding of dangerousness.
|
A conviction for indecent assault was quashed where the judge had not given an adequate good character direction, an adequate direction regarding the long delay between the alleged assaults and the date of complaint to the police, or an adequate Lucas direction and where he had not sufficiently summarised the defence case in his summing up.
|
The first and second appellants (L and K) appealed against extradition orders made against them in the United Kingdom on the basis that the Magistrates’ Court had misinterpreted the requirement in s2(4)(b) and s2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 respectively, to particularise ‘any other warrant’, and accordingly had wrongly ordered extradition where the warrant was invalid. HELD: In dismissing the appeals, ‘any other warrant’ referred to the domestic warrant upon w ...
|
Marine Insurance A trawler caught fire whilst in port. All the crew were ashore at the relevant time. The trawler owner (C) claimed on his insurance with the defendant (D). Under that policy, C warranted that there would be a “Warranted Owner and/or Owner’s experienced skipper on board and in charge at all times and one experienced crew member”. D argued that C could not recover under the policy by reason of breach of warranty as the required personnel were not onboard the trawler at the rele ...
|
A warranty in a marine insurance policy that the owner or experienced skipper would be on board and in charge ‘at all times’ did not apply when the vessel was moored applying the contra proferentem rule of construction or one the basis of the construction of the clause in context.
|
| 1 |