Latest Cases

Criminal law – Sexual assault. The offender had been convicted of assault by penetration contrary to s 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment. The victim had been in a lengthy relationship with the offender and there had been previous incidences of domestic violence. In sentencing, the judge had taken into account, amongst other things, a plea made by the victim, who had sought to withdraw her statement at trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that given the background and the gravity of the offence, the sentence had been unduly lenient. Consequently, the sentence was increased to seven years' imprisonment. 

Employment tribunal – Race discrimination. The employer appealed against the employment tribunal's finding of unlawful race discrimination in respect of the employee. The employer contended that the tribunal had decided the case on a point which had never been identified as an issue. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the appeal, held that it had not been open to the tribunal to make that finding having regard to the ET1 and the agreed issues. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State, refusing his application for leave to remain, first, because he had not signed the application form and then because the application was out of time. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application and quashing the decision, held that the Secretary of State should have considered exercising her residual discretion to grant leave to remain outside the Immigration Rules. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellants appealed against orders for their extradition and costs orders imposed. The Divisional Court held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to determine an appeal from a costs order where a person had challenged that order as a part of pursuing an unsuccessful appeal against an extradition order. However, it did have jurisdiction to vary or quash a costs order when the person had successfully appealed an extradition order pursuant to ss 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003. The costs order against the first appellant would be quashed, as he was successful on his appeal, but not that against the unsuccessful second defendant. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Vietnamese national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision granting her and her children discretionary leave to remain in the United Kingdom, rather than indefinite leave to remain. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there was no indication at all in any of the documents that any assessment had ever been made by the Secretary of State of what the best interests of the claimant's elder child might be, in accordance with s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. 

Crown – Prerogative. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to issue her a passport. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision was obviously flawed. It was based on an error of facts as to the submitted birth certificate and was a decision which was not open to proper external scrutiny. 

Human Rights – Torture. The claimant appealed against the judge's decision that the framework for control and restraint of those subject to removal from the United Kingdom by aircraft was compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and that the publication of a redacted Use of Force Training Manual was lawful. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that there was no basis for finding a breach of arts 2 or 3 of the Convention, nor was there any basis for departing from the judge's analysis and conclusions as to the lawfulness of the redactions. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 138(1) and 139(1), second sub-paragraph, of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (on the common system of value added tax), as amended. The request had been made in proceedings between Traum EOOD (Traum) and the Director of the Varna 'Appeals and practice in the field of tax and social security' directorate at the central office of the public revenue agency regarding a tax adjustment notice refusing to grant Traum an exemption from VAT in respect of a transaction which it had categorised as an 'intra-Community supply of goods'. 

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned an appeal relating to a contractual expert determination of an amount to be paid for the sale of a share in a company. The judge declared that the determination had not been valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, on the true construction of the agreement governing the sale of the shares, the judge had been right to find that the expert had erred in considering that he was prevented from embarking on the task of applying the correct policy as to the calculation of liabilities. 

European Union – State aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 107(1) TFEU. The request had been made in proceedings between the Spanish Ministry of Defence and Navantia SA and the Municipality of Ferrol concerning an exemption from property tax relating to land made available by Spain to Navantia.