It was not for a magistrate examining an extradition request to try and determine whether or not the requesting State had made out a case to answer against D. The main question was whether or not the offence was an extradition offence. Therefore habeas corpus was not available as a remedy in those circumstances.
|
In the case of a fully-informed and responsible adult, it would never be appropriate to find him guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a class A controlled drug, which is then freely and voluntarily self-administered by the person to whom it was supplied, and the administration of the drug then causes his death.
|
Unfairness of police officers and CPS employees sitting as jurors leading to successful appeals against conviction.
|
When assessing compensation for loss of earning arising out of a miscarriage of justice, the money that the defendant would have had to pay for his living expenses were he not in prison should be deducted.
|
The appellant had been correctly convicted of using racially aggravated, abusive or insulting or words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provoke violence under s.31(1)(a) Crime and Disorder Act 1998 when he called a group of Spanish women “bloody foreigners” and stated they should “go back to their own country.” The HL stated that the meaning of “racial group” in s.28(4) went beyond defining groups by their colour, race or ethnicity. The Statue provided for a flexible, non-technical appr ...
|
An application for disclosure under s.8 CPIA 1996 fell within one of the purposes for holding a preparatory hearing under s.7 CJA 1987. However, an appeal from the preparatory hearing under s.9(11) CJA 1987 would only lie if it involved a question of law. In the instant case the judge was asked to order disclosure, rather than make a ruling on a question of law. Therefore the could be no appeal against the decision under s.9(11) CJA 1987.
|
In respect of a CJA 1988 receivership, CPR r.69.7(2) did not override the general rule that the Receiver’s remuneration, costs and expenses were taken from the receivership assets.
|
The law allowed for the release of long-term prisoners to be determined by the parole board, however, in the case of prisoners subject to deportation the decision was one for the Home Sec. Held: Such a policy was discriminatory.
|
It was an abuse of the court’s process for a private prosecution to be brought against D after he had accepted a formal caution by a police officer on the express assurance that, if he agreed to be cautioned, he would not have to go before a criminal court in connection with the offence.
|
D’s continued detention in custody whilst awaiting trial after the court’s refusal to extend the statutory custody time limit due to the prosecution’s failure to act with due diligence and expedition, did not necessarily amount to a breach of D’s right to “trial within a reasonable time” under art.5(3) ECHR, within HRA 1998.
|
| 1 2 3 4 |