The claimant ha been involved in the management of a company operating a ferry in Egypt. The claimant had been acquitted in Egypt of criminal liability, but then convicted in his absence on appeal, after submissions made on his behalf were discounted because of his absence. After sentence to imprisonment, the Egyptian court requested the … Continue reading Ismail, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 6 Jul 2016
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Renewed application for judicial review whereby the claimant seeks permission to challenge the issue and execution of a search warrant for its premises. The warrant was requested by a German prosecutor under mutual legal assistance pursuant to section 16 of the 2003 Act. Beatson LJ, Cranston J  EWHC 3465 (Admin) Bailii Crime (International Co-operation) … Continue reading Brookfield Aviation International Ltd v The Guildford Crown Court and Others: Admn 4 Dec 2015
This case raises for consideration the question, amongst others, whether the common law duty of disclosure or candour attaching to an applicant for a domestic search warrant is applicable, in modified form, to an authority requesting assistance by way of a Letter of Request from a foreign authority, pursuant to the provisions of s.7 of … Continue reading Unaenergy Group Holding Pte Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of The Serious Fraud Office: Admn 29 Mar 2017
The defendant had been convicted of involvement in a substantial VAT fraud, and made subject to a confiscation order. He was made subject to a confiscation order in respect of the amounts lost to the fraud where he was involved, but argued that the court had made each of 16 defendants liable for the full … Continue reading May, Regina v: HL 14 May 2008
A foreign court had sent a letter requesting assistance. The Act had a clear error of drafting and the court was now asked whether it could correct that error to direct an application for a production order.
Held: The Act could be read to . .
The Commission renewed its application for a review of a decision on their request for judicial assistance in obtaining evidence from the firm. The firm had produced confidential documents to the court, and not disclosed to the Commission.