The areas of work in which we have particular expertise, experience and excellence.
The areas of work in which we have particular expertise, experience and excellence.
News | Fri 20th Feb, 2015
In R (on the application of Grant) v Kingston Crown Court (2015) the Claimant applied for judicial review of the respondent Crown Court’s decision to dismiss his appeal against a foreign travel order (FTO).
The Claimant, a UK national, was convicted in India of sexual offences involving street children. Having served a significant sentence of imprisonment in India, he was deported to the UK, where he was met at the airport by police. Thereafter, the police successfully applied to the Magistrates’ Court for an FTO against the Claimant, preventing him from travelling to any country outside the UK for a five year period, for the purpose of protecting children from serious sexual harm from the Claimant outside the UK. The Claimant appealed the Magistrates’ Court decision to Kingston Crown Court. The appeal was dismissed after a rehearing of the evidence and an FTO was granted for a five year period.
The Claimant applied for permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review of the Crown Court‘s decision on a number of grounds. He submitted that the judge had erred in not considering the safety of his Indian convictions, erred in his assessment that it was just, necessary and proportionate to impose a worldwide FTO for a five year period (the statutory maximum), and erred in imposing a five year term from the date of the appeal.
The High Court refused permission on all but one narrow ground: the date from which the order of the Crown Court order ran. After hearing submissions at a judicial review hearing, the court refused to quash the order of the Crown Court. It modified the order so that its expiry date would reflect a five year period from the date of the first Magistrate’s Court order.
The FTO obtained by the police therefore remained in place. Jennifer Newcomb appeared for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, an interested party.
This case is reported on Lawtel. References: LTL 18/2/2015 EXTEMPORE Document No: AC9201203
