District Court in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Lauri Love v The Government of the United States of America
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 05 February 2018

    The true approach is more simply expressed by requiring the appellate court to decide whether the decision of the district judge was wrong. The appellate court is entitled to stand back and say that a question ought to have been decided differently because the overall evaluation was wrong: crucial factors should have been weighed so significantly differently as to make the decision wrong, such that the appeal in consequence should be allowed.

  • HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 June 2012

    (7) Hence it is likely that the public interest in extradition will outweigh the article 8 rights of the family unless the consequences of the interference with family life will be exceptionally severe.

    While the district judge did find that the appellant fled Poland in order to avoid prosecution, and thus was not entitled to rely upon passage of time as a bar for the purpose of section 14 of the 2003 Act, the overall length of the delay is relevant to the article 8 question. Whatever the reasons, it does not suggest any urgency about bringing the appellant to justice, which is also some indication of the importance attached to her offending.

  • Polish Judicial Authorities v Adam Celinski and Others
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 06 May 2015

    In answering the question whether the district judge, in the light of those findings of fact, was wrong to decide that extradition was or was not proportionate, the focus must be on the outcome, that is on the decision itself. Although the district judge's reasons for the proportionality decision must be considered with care, errors and omissions do not of themselves necessarily show that the decision on proportionality itself was wrong.

  • Attorney General's Reference (No. 2 of 2001); R v J
    • House of Lords
    • 11 December 2003

    If, through the action or inaction of a public authority, a criminal charge is not determined at a hearing within a reasonable time, there is necessarily a breach of the defendant's Convention right under article 6(1). It will not be appropriate to stay or dismiss the proceedings unless (a) there can no longer be a fair hearing or (b) it would otherwise be unfair to try the defendant.

    The category of cases in which it may be unfair to try a defendant of course includes cases of bad faith, unlawfulness and executive manipulation of the kind classically illustrated by R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, but Mr Emmerson contended that the category should not be confined to such cases. It would be unwise to attempt to describe such cases in advance.

  • Rot v District Court of Lublin Poland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 23 June 2010

    The question must therefore be addressed and answered in such a case: would the mental condition of the person to be extradited make it oppressive to extradite him?

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Forms
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT