*/
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.”
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Leah Arthur, a pupil, and her second seat supervisor, John Goss, share their perspectives on building a productive pupil-supervisor relationship
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
The Ministry of Justice will match-fund up to 100 criminal pupillages, with grants available to criminal chambers across England and Wales. Similar to the COIC scheme, the grants will match-fund pupillages additional to those otherwise offered without government funding
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
