Davis v Criminal Cases Review Commission & Anor

Davis v Criminal Cases Review Commission & Anor

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant bail to the claimant; the proper procedure is to apply to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The Commission was entitled in law not to obtain or disclose the CCTV material, as it was not necessary for the exercise of its functions and would not materially assist the case. The court declined to rule on the Commission's contact with counsel, as it was not properly before the court.

Parties
Claimant: Kevin John Davis; 1st Defendant: Criminal Cases Review Commission; 2nd Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Bail, Disclosure of Evidence, Deportation, Jurisdiction, Criminal Appeals
Criminal Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Bail Disclosure of Evidence Deportation Jurisdiction Criminal Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin John Davis

Claimant

Criminal Cases Review Commission

1st Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant bail to the claimant pending review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission
  2. 2 Whether the Commission acted lawfully in refusing to obtain and disclose CCTV material to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Commission acted properly in contacting court-appointed counsel without the claimant's authority

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant bail to the claimant; the proper procedure is to apply to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. The Commission was entitled in law not to obtain or disclose the CCTV material, as it was not necessary for the exercise of its functions and would not materially assist the case. The court declined to rule on the Commission's contact with counsel, as it was not properly before the court.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed