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 conviction for the Bail Act offence was unlawful and must be quashed due to the Rule of Specialty. The eight-year extended sentence for sexual assault was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's dangerousness, aggravating factors, and impact on the justice system.
Source excerpt
The District Judge lawfully and properly took delay into account in the Article 8 balancing exercise, recognising that not all delay could be attributed to fugitivity and that some was systemic. Even if further criticism could be levelled at the explanation for delay, the Applicant’s fugitivity, seriousness of the offence, and lack of dependants outweighed the delay and private life factors. No arguable legal error was identified in the District Judge’s approach, and the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
Source excerpt
OQR v The Government of Norway [2026] EWHC 894 (Admin) (20 April 2026)
High Court extradition appeal dismissed. The court held that extradition to Norway was not disproportionate under Article 8, despite serious family impacts and new evidence.
High Court appeal against extradition to Norway dismissed after the court found Article 8 family-life concerns, including a child with autism, were outweighed by the public interest.
An extradition appeal was dismissed after the court held the appellant was treated as present at trial because he had mandated legal counsel under an EAW.
Kiss v Hungarian Judicial Authority [2026] EWHC 843 (Admin) (10 April 2026)
Extradition appeal dismissed. The court held the EAW and record supported a finding that the appellant had given a mandate to a lawyer, satisfying section 20(2).
The District Judge was entitled to find the applicant a fugitive based on his failure to comply with conditional release obligations and concealment of his whereabouts. The interference with family life, even considering new circumstances, did not reach the threshold of exceptionally severe consequences required to outweigh the public interest in extradition. No arguable error in law or principle was demonstrated.
Source excerpt
Appeal against extradition to Sweden dismissed. The court held the appellant had not shown a real Article 3 risk from prison conditions, and refused fresh evidence.
The High Court refused Nirav Modi’s application to reopen his extradition appeal, holding that Government of India assurances sufficiently reduced any Article 3 risk.
Ozkara, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 479 (25 March 2026)
The Court of Appeal quashed Ozkara’s bail-offence conviction, reduced dangerous driving sentences from 12 to 8 years each, and quashed an unlawful extended driving ban.
Explore more
