• CIVIL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Osman Omar

This is an attempt to appeal by the Secretary of State against a second reconsideration by the AIT. The appeal is mounted pursuant to permission granted by Senior Immigration Judge Storey. That SIJ Storey had granted permission to appeal escaped the notice of those responsible for ensuring that the appellant's notice was filed at the Court of Appeal. Once the error was observed it was filed. Thus the Secretary of State needs permission to extend the time for service of the notice of appeal. Following the favourable decision of SIJ Storey it might be thought that she had substantial grounds for such an extension. Whether appellant is entitled to further extension of time?

The fact of the delay has a direct bearing upon the merits of the appeal the Secretary of State seeks to pursue. Her avowed attempt to protect the public interest is seriously undermined by a delay of nearly one year in pursuing the appeal which she considers necessary to safeguard that interest. In those circumstances I would refuse an extension of time in which to serve the notice of appeal and dismiss the application. Counsel accepts there is no warrant for the anonymity in which these proceedings have hitherto been cloaked.

• CRIMINAL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions R vs Athwal & Ors

Mother and son were convicted of murdering the deceased. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, mother with a minimum term of 20 years, son with a minimum term of 27 years. Mother was given leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. Son was given leave to appeal against sentence and against a confiscation order and against conviction too.

In the judgment the judge was plainly entitled to find that the court was being manipulated by the attitude Sukhdave was taking to the confiscation proceedings. He could have added that his credibility as a witness had been gravely compromised by the many dishonest actions he had taken since his wife's disappearance, as our summary of the undisputed facts of the case shows. The end result is that which Sukhdave claimed to want to achieve, namely that both appellants paid the confiscation orders in full on 28 February 2008, those funds coming from monies held in the children's bank account and a loan raised by Sukhdave's sister, who had received the money, to pay the balance. That was paid into the relevant magistrates court and on 16 May 2008 the judge made compensation orders in favour of the children, to be held by a solicitor appointed by the local authority for the children. The appellants were ordered to pay £20,448, respectively, to each of the 2 children to be paid out of the confiscation order. The result that the parties said they wanted to achieve has therefore been achieved, albeit after much expense of time and money. The procedure adopted by the judge was appropriate and fair in the circumstances, given the permissible conclusion he reached as to the attitude of Sukhdave to this aspect of the proceedings. The appeal against the confiscation order must therefore be dismissed.