Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Magistrates’ Court failed to give adequate reasons for its refusal, rendering the decision unlawful and justifying quashing and remittal for reconsideration.
Source excerpt
National Crime Agency v GKC (No.1) [2026] EWHC 573 (Admin) (13 March 2026)
The High Court refused to discharge an unexplained wealth order and interim freezing order, holding that the NCA had made proper enquiries and could rely on disclosed open-source material.
Pilley, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 384 (25 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division refused leave to appeal and an extension of time in Andrew Pilley’s case, holding that fresh ADHD evidence did not make the convictions unsafe.
Although the sentencing judge took too high a starting point, applying the guidelines correctly leads to the same sentence of three years' imprisonment, which is not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and aggravating features of the offence.
Source excerpt
The requirements for written application and sworn evidence under the Magistrates’ Courts (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 are not bright-line rules. The Magistrates were rationally and lawfully entitled to treat the Interested Party’s oral and written submissions as a valid application under section 297, given the absence of prejudice to the Claimant and the full consideration of evidence. The decision to order immediate release of the cash was not irrational, unlawful, or unfair.
Source excerpt
O'Brien & Ors v Crown Prosecution Service & Ors [2025] EWHC 3387 (Admin) (22 December 2025)
Permission for judicial review was refused in three linked EncroChat claims challenging EIOs, JIT data-sharing, Dubai data, proportionality, and time limits.
Salem & Anor, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1602 (19 December 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed challenges to fines and costs for breach of a planning enforcement notice, holding the Crown Court had unlimited sentencing powers and the orders were not excessive.
Hutchinson, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1771 (04 December 2025)
The Court of Appeal upheld a three-year sentence for a sophisticated refund fraud and money laundering scheme, finding the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
The High Court made a POCA civil recovery order over cryptocurrency held in accounts linked to Joseph O’Connor, Keir Holme and Kyle Lomax.
The sentence, though at the higher end, was not manifestly excessive given the industrial scale of the operation, the profits generated, the involvement of others, and the continuation of offending after arrest. Consecutive sentences were justified to reflect the distinct criminal activities, and the judge gave adequate consideration to the totality principle.
Source excerpt
Explore more
