R v COKESIX LUBEMBA : R v JP (2014)
The court gave guidance on the procedure to be followed by the judge when deciding whether the cross-examination of a vulnerable witness was appropriate.
R v CARL MICHAEL POWELL (2014)
A judge had not erred in refusing to sever an indictment containing counts relating to separate incidents of murder and sexual assault. The incidents were broadly similar and close in time and there were a number of very significant similarities. The issue as to whether they were wholly disconnected was a matter for the jury.
ANDREAS KODOS (AKA JETMIR OLLTARI) v LITHUANIA (2010)
Alleged offences relating to prostitution and people trafficking as specified in a European arrest warrant for which the appellant’s extradition to Lithuania was sought amounted to extradition offences by virtue of the Extradition Act 2003 s.64(3). All the conditions of s.64(3) had been met, notably as the conduct alleged in the warrant had partly occurred […]