Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Mann [2021] EWHC 1182 (Admin)

“The case was concerned with the operation of the provisions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for the seizure and detention of cash reasonably suspected to be either recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct. It arose from a situation in which HMRC had been unable to get an extension application on for hearing because of delays caused by the Coronavirus pandemic ...”

ADDED Monday 2nd August 2021

R v Jackson (John) [2021] 4 WLR 93

“The case concerned whether there was a right of appeal, under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, against the variation of a restraining order imposed under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and if the Court of Appeal did have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, whether the Crown Court judge had erred in extending the original 10-year order by a further 10 years in circumstances where no breach of the order had occurred since it was first made …”

ADDED Friday 30th July 2021

Meng v HSBC Bank plc [2021] 2 WLR 1153

“The case was concerned with the proper ambit of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, in particular whether that UK Act of Parliament can be resorted to by litigants abroad in aid of legal proceedings in other jurisdictions and also whether the scope of the statute extends to business documents held by a bank other than transactional records, including, for example, documents created and held by the bank for the purposes of regulatory compliance ...”

ADDED Wednesday 28th July 2021

R v Baldwin (Kara) [2021] 4 WLR 73

“The case concerned whether a sentence of immediate detention in a Young Offender Institution, imposed on a vulnerable and immature 18 year old, was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It prompted the court to discuss the proper application of a succession of Sentencing Council Guidelines dealing variously with young offenders, offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments and offences involving domestic violence. And as regards domestic abuse, the court considered specifically the relevance of the gender of the offender and whether there is any material difference between such violence perpetrated by women against men rather by men against women …”

ADDED Monday 26th July 2021

Polakowski v Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2021] 1 WLR 2521

“The case raised pretty fundamental issues about the effect of Brexit on the European Arrest Warrant system. It involved five different individuals, who had each been arrested pursuant to European Arrest Warrants issued by the judicial authorities in countries which were ‘category 1’ territories for the purposes of Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 and which had implemented Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures between member states of the European Union ...”
ADDED Friday 25th June 2021

R (Director of Legal Aid Casework) v Southwark Crown Court [2021] 1 WLR 2779

“The case was concerned with the capital contribution claimed by the Legal Aid Agency from a defendant following a six-month trial for tax fraud in proceedings dealt with under the ‘Very High Cost Case’ regime. The defendant had been acquitted of the main conspiracy count but convicted on a subsidiary count relating to misrepresentations made to HMRC in the course of their preceding civil inquiry. It provides a stark illustration of the risks to both defendants and their lawyers if application to the trial judge for an order that the defendant should only have to pay a proportion of the costs of his representation is not made within the time specified by the relevant regulations ...”
ADDED Thursday 24th June 2021

R v Thomasson (Carne Michael) [2021] 2 Cr App R 5

“The case arose from a gang war in Manchester and prompted the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to consider the legal basis for the admissibility of identification evidence in the form of E-Fit pictures …”

ADDED Friday 18th June 2021

R v Tierney-Campbell (Jake) [2020] EWCA Crim 1194

“It was a particularly tragic case, relating to a senseless and vicious attack on an unsuspecting member of the public, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The perpetrator pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, but when, more than 4 years later, his victim eventually died and the defendant found himself on a murder charge, he tried to go behind his earlier guilty plea and applied for a lengthy extension of time for leave to appeal against the conviction on the basis of what he now said was the inadequacy of the legal advice he had received. It prompted the court to set out in some detail the principles to be applied in determining such an application …”
ADDED Wednesday 16th June 2021

R v Finch (Simon James) [2021] 4 WLR 64

“The case was concerned with sentencing for the unauthorised recording and disclosure of Secret, Top Secret and Code Access information, highly prejudicial to national security. The sentence passed by the trial judge was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Solicitor General as unduly lenient. It prompted the court to consider the so-called ‘brightline rule’, laid down by Lord Griffiths in AG v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109, and to apply that rule in the case of a defendant whose Autism/Aspergers undoubtedly impacted on his sense of grievance but not his ability to form the requisite intent ...”
ADDED Friday 11th June 2021