*/
The country’s highest court heard fewer appeals and gave fewer judgments over the last year, despite sitting for more days, its annual report revealed.
The Supreme Court sat for 136 days in the year ending 31 March 2014, nine more than the previous year, but heard 31 (26%) fewer appeals and gave judgment in 34 (30%) fewer cases.
The report explained that this was due to longer hearings, a growth in appeals heard by panels of seven or nine justices and fewer linked appeals.
Applications for permission to appeal considered rose by 34% to 269, with requests to bring criminal appeals up from eight to 19 and a rise in public law cases about employment, housing and taxation. Applications to hear appeals about legal procedure fell from 38 to 22.
The court granted permission to appeal in a smaller proportion of judicial review, immigration and family law cases and handed down fewer judgments on crime, immigration and tax issues. There were more decisions relating to prisoner detention and contract law.
Litigants in person applying for permission to appeal stayed at 24 out of the total of 231. Supreme Court President, Lord Neuberger, said: “We have had an unusual number of particularly demanding cases, which is reflected in the fact that the average time between hearing and judgment has increased from last year, and the number of decisions is lower than last year.”
The country’s highest court heard fewer appeals and gave fewer judgments over the last year, despite sitting for more days, its annual report revealed.
The Supreme Court sat for 136 days in the year ending 31 March 2014, nine more than the previous year, but heard 31 (26%) fewer appeals and gave judgment in 34 (30%) fewer cases.
The report explained that this was due to longer hearings, a growth in appeals heard by panels of seven or nine justices and fewer linked appeals.
Applications for permission to appeal considered rose by 34% to 269, with requests to bring criminal appeals up from eight to 19 and a rise in public law cases about employment, housing and taxation. Applications to hear appeals about legal procedure fell from 38 to 22.
The court granted permission to appeal in a smaller proportion of judicial review, immigration and family law cases and handed down fewer judgments on crime, immigration and tax issues. There were more decisions relating to prisoner detention and contract law.
Litigants in person applying for permission to appeal stayed at 24 out of the total of 231. Supreme Court President, Lord Neuberger, said: “We have had an unusual number of particularly demanding cases, which is reflected in the fact that the average time between hearing and judgment has increased from last year, and the number of decisions is lower than last year.”
Far-ranging month for the Chair of the Bar
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the most recent data on alcohol misuse in the UK, and the implications for alcohol testing in family proceedings
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how tailored financial planning can help barristers take control of their finances and plan with confidence
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Switching from a physical blue book to OneNote is simple, secure and game-changing, says Elizabeth Bowden – you’ll wonder how you managed without it...
Is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office process fit for purpose? Women barristers’ experiences of bullying are not being reported or, if they are, they are not making it through the system, says Tana Adkin KC
Review by Daniel Barnett
