Held: The current policy of the PB to determine appeals against prisoner recalls within 55 working days was excessive and unlawful under article 5 ECHR. The PB ought to consider particular characteristics of detained persons, including the state of their mental health.
|
D objected to extradition to the United States on the basis that he would receive a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (the US having given the usual undertaking not to execute him). It was argued that such a sentence was in breach of his human rights and constituted inhuman or degrading treatment. Held: The sentence did not satisfy the severity needed to engage and offend article 3 as the whole life tariff was appropriate for such a heinous crime.
|
The case concerned a shop where lingerie and sexual items including whips were displayed in the window of the shop. The landlord of the shopping centre obtained an interim injunction pending trial preventing the window display from being sexually suggestive and explicit.
|
Note of Appeal under section 74(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
Here the appellants lodged devolution minutes in which they averred that their right to a "fair and public hearing within a reasonable time", under Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms had been infringed. It was contended that taking the appellants to trial would be ultra vires of the Lord Advocate, by virtue of section 57 of the Scotland Act 1998. The starting point of the question of whether the period was reasonable was 21 May 200 ...
|
D was stopped by a PC and gave the name "Robert Vernon" before making off. He was later identified by the PC and, at trial, evidence was admitted that D had recorded on the PNC the fact that he used the alias "Robert Vernon". Held: Despite the fact that no evidence in relation to the recording of the alias name and the circumstances under which it came to be recorded was available, the evidence was properly admitted.
|
D made an allegation of robbery that resulted in an innocent person being charged and held in custody for 9 days. On a charge of common law perverting the course of justice the YC declined jurisdiction, finding the offence to merit more than 2 years detention. Held: The decision was wrong in law, as it was unlikely even in the case of an adult, that such a sentence would be imposed.
|
The prison authorities were faced with 2 orders, one requiring D to be produced for a criminal trial, the other to be delivered for extradition. As D had consented to extradition the requirement to hold the prisoner for trial (s.22 Extradition Act 2003) did not bite. Held: The extradition order took precedence.
|
When considering an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the Divisional Court is restricted to either allowing or rejecting the appeal. The Court had no power to order the return of travel documents so as to facilitate D’s voluntary return.
|
Writ of habeas corpus issued in relation to alleged terror suspects subject to deportation proceedings on the basis that acquittals in the requesting State had undermined the extradition process.
|
D, 13 at the time of the alleged offence was charged along with 4 others (14 at the time) of sexual assault under s.13 Sexual Offences Act 2003. It was alleged that during a party they followed a 13 year old girl into a lavatory, fondled her br--sts and inserted a vib--tor into her va--na. The assault lasted approximately 5 minutes and alcohol appeared to play a significant part. The Youth Court declined jurisdiction. Held: The decision was wrong in law. The incident lasted for only a short time ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |