Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in habeas corpus proceedings, finds committal warrant holding prisoner transferred from the UK to be defective (that defect falling into an intermediate category) but declines to release the prisoner, instead allowing the Minister for Justice, should she elect to do so, to apply to this court to have the terms of the existing warrant varied so that the duration of the sentence is appropriately recorded.
Criminal law – habeas corpus – Article 40 application – sentencing systems in England and Wales – jurisdiction of Court to correct documentary errors – s. 7 of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995-1997 – detention of the applicant defective due to warrant – Article 9(1) and Article 10(1) of the Strasbourg Convention – remission – Rule 59 of the Prison Rules – defects in the present case fall into an intermediate category – Minister, should she elect to do so, may to apply to this Court under s. 9(1)(b) of the 1995 Act to have the terms of the existing s. 7 warrant varied so that the duration of the sentence is appropriately recorded – case adjourned for short period.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.