LIBOR banker's appeal dismissed

On 3 August 2015, after a trial lasting 47 days at Southwark Crown Court before Cooke J and a jury, Tom Hayes ("the appellant") was convicted on eight counts of conspiracy to defraud in relation to the manipulation of the Japanese Yen London Interbank Offered Rate ("Yen LIBOR").

On 3 August 2015, he was sentenced to a total of 14 years imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has dismissed Mr Hayes' appeal against conviction.  His sentence was reduced from 14 years to 11.  Read the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The prosecution case was that,

Death of Lord Janner

The death of Lord Janner of Braunstone has been reported - The Guardian 19th December.

The proceedings against him were covered in previous posts -18th April; 29th June; 13th August and 7th December.

In April, a decision not to prosecute Janner for 22 alleged serious sexual offences was taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and this decision was based on clear medical evidence as to Janner's dementia.  In June, following a review, this decision was reversed.  The reversal of the decision followed a "Victims Right to Review" process instigated by six of the complainants and conducted by David Perry QC.   Janner's case was sent to the Crown Court and, on 7th December, Mr Justice Openshaw ruled that Janner was unfit to plead - read the decision dated 7th December 2015.

Arrested and refused to give names and addresses ~ Police Reform Act 2002 section 50 ~ charges discontinued.

On 9th November I blogged about three individuals who had been charged with failing to provide their names and addresses to the Police - Law and Lawyers - Arrested and refused to give names - DailyMail complains that they got unconditional bail.

The Police Reform Act 2002 section 50 created a NON-imprisonable summary offence.  It is triable only in the Magistrates' Court and carries a maximum penalty of a fine of £1000 (Level 3).

The three were granted unconditional bail and a trial date set for next year.  It is now reported that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has discontinued proceedings against them due to "evidential grounds" - see Daily Mail 19th December.   No further detail is offered.

Section 50 (taking into account amendments) states:

A brief note on the Strathclyde Review ~ a major constitutional change is proposed

A wolf in sheep's clothing

The Tax Credits row (earlier post) between the House of Lords led to the Prime Minister setting up a review, under the Chairmanship of Lord Strathclyde, to consider the powers of the House of Lords in relation to statutory instruments.  The government had claimed that cuts to tax credits were crucial to its plans for public finances but the cuts were abandoned in the Autumn Statement.

See the Strathclyde review

In October, the House of Lords voted on the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates)(Amendment) Regulations 2015.  The Lords did not approve the legislation  but neither did they agree on a so-called "Fatal Motion" to kill it off.  Their votes imposed delay.  As far as legal rights are concerned, the Lords acted within their powers but it is claimed that a constitutional convention giving primacy to the House of Commons in financial matters was breached.

The Strathclyde Review was conducted by hereditary peer Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith (2nd Baron Strathclyde) along with Jacqy Sharpe (former Clerk of Legislation in the House of Commons and Commons Clerk to the Joint Committee on Conventions in 2006), Sir Stephen Laws (former First Parliamentary Counsel) and Sir Michael Pownall (former Clerk of the Parliaments),

The review offers three options

Stop and Search ~ CJPOA 1994 section 60

Updated 17th December

On Thursday 17th December, the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in R (Roberts) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another

The issue in the case is - Do stop and search powers under s.60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 contain sufficient safeguards for the powers to be "in accordance with the law" for the purposes of arts.5 and 8 ECHR?

The appellant, a 38 year old black woman, was stopped by a bus inspector for failing to pay for her journey, and subsequently stopped and searched in the street by a police constable. Her bag was also searched. This took place in an area where a s.60 authorisation was in force (allowing for stop and search without any grounds for suspicion on the part of individual police officers).

As the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) noted

Conflicts with Strasbourg

Russia - Constitutional Court

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe (Mr Thorbjørn Jagland) has issued a statement regarding the stance recently adopted by Russia toward the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Regarding Russia’s new legislation on the Constitutional Court’s competence to examine possible conflicts between judgments of the European Court of Human Rights  (E Ct HR) and the Russian Constitution, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, recalls that according to Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights all member states of the Council of Europe undertake to abide by the final judgments of the Strasbourg Court (to which they are a Party).

The Secretary General said -  “it will be up to the Constitutional Court of Russia to ensure respect for the Convention if it is called upon to act under the new provisions. The Council of Europe will only be able to assess Russia’s compliance with its obligations when and if a specific case arises. The compatibility of Strasbourg judgments with the national constitutions has been examined in some other member States.  So far, countries have always been able to find a solution in line with the Convention. This should also be possible in Russia."

A Bill signed into law by the Russian President (Vladimir Putin)

Judgment in the Wang Yam case ~ Right of individual petition to Strasbourg

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Wang Yam's appeal - see previous post.

A Press summary of the decision has been published as well as the court's judgment delivered by Lord Mance.

The Supreme Court noted that Article 38 of the convention enabled the E Ct HR to  request the UK government to furnish additional information.  Lord Mance said (para 33) - " ... in deciding whether to order that material withheld by governmental authorities from an alleged victim should be disclosed to it, the European Court of Human Rights will consider the independence and thoroughness of the domestic procedure for reviewing the authorities' decision. It will consider in that light whether any and if so what further disclosure should be made. It will by no means necessarily conclude that any further disclosure was required."