The applicant for judicial review (D) had been convicted and sentenced for an offence under section 3 of the 2003 Act, and recommended for deportation. He sought review of the decision of the respondent not to refer his case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. A question had arisen as to the existence of any legal privilege in his relationship with court-appointed counsel
Held: The court assumed that anything so disclosed by D was in fact protected by legal privilege, and in fact there had been no material disclosure here. However it was implicit in a request to the Commission for a reference that privilege was waived. It might have been better for the Commission to have warned the applicant that an approach would be made, but issue had been settled.
The Commission had approached the court appointed counsel, and D now sought the notes of any meeting. It was not for the court in this application ‘to start making orders to counsel, who is now party to the proceedings. That is a matter between him and her, and him and the CCRC, assuming the notes still exist.’
Judges:
Elias J, Calvert-Smith J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC B14 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Sexual Offences Act 2003 3, Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 38
Crime, Immigration
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417093
