Latest Cases

Sentencing – Road traffic offences – Causing death by dangerous driving. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing a Crown appeal against the 4-year sentence of imprisonment, discounted from 6 years, which was imposed on a respondent who pled guilty to an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, the contention being that the sentence was unduly lenient, the court concluded that the judge's selection of a headline sentence of 6 years' imprisonment could not be said to fall outwith the range of disposals open to him, nor had he erred in selecting the level of discount which he did. 

Criminal procedure – Rape – Standard of interpretation at trial – Judge's charge. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant, whose native tongue was Korean, against his conviction for rape, the court rejected contentions that the appellant had not received a fair trial because the interpreter at the trial had impeded rather than improved his understanding of the proceedings and that the trial judge had materially misdirected the jury in her directions on reasonable belief. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Planning Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant local authority's grant of planning permission to the first interested party for a three-turbine electricity generation facility. None of the claimants' five grounds of challenge had been made out. 

Contract – Formation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the judge's decision that there had been a binding contract between the parties, formed by the claimant (Reveille) accepting through conduct a written agreement, which had been signed by the defendant (Anotech), but not Reveille. It held that Reveille had waived the provision that there would be no binding contract in the absence of its signature on the agreement, and there had been no prejudice from that to Anotech. There had been acceptance by conduct on Reveille's part of the terms of the agreement, which had led to a binding contract. 

European Union – Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation and validity of a number of provisions of Directive 2014/40/EU concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products. The request had been made in two sets of proceedings brought by: (i) Philip Morris Brands SARL and Philip Morris Ltd; and (ii) British American Tobacco UK Ltd against the Secretary of State for Health in the United Kingdom, concerning the legality of the 'intention and/or obligation' of the UK government to implement Directive 2014/40. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant local authority's appeal by way of case stated against the second respondent magistrates' court's acquittal of the first respondent of two offences of breaching an enforcement notice issued by the appellant local authority against the change of use of a property to two self-contained flats without planning permission. 

Jury – Verdict. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, provided guidance as to the proper approach where it was contended that the verdicts of the jury had been inconsistent. It was held that the law ought to return to and apply the clear test set out in R v Stone ((13 December 1954, unreported)), as formally adopted in R v Durante ([1972] 3 All ER 1056). Applying that test, the defendants' convictions had not been unsafe. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division, in a clinical negligence case brought by the claimant by her mother as litigation friend, held that there had been no negligence in the performance of a correctional operation preformed on the claimant which left her with damage to the cauda equina with consequent lower paralysis. 

Costs – Order for costs. The Chancery Division made rulings in a case concerning the disclosure of information about the running of a trust to the claimant, who was the daughter of the testatrix. As disclosure had occurred, only costs remained. The court held that the costs of both parties would be paid out of the trust fund, in each case on the indemnity basis. It further considered the extent to which trustees could seek to claim privilege as against beneficiaries in relation to certain documents and what, if anything, the defendants would be entitled to recover if they had been ordered to pay the costs of the claimant. 

European Union – Value added tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding, among other things, that art 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive (EEC) 77/388 should be interpreted as meaning that the value of a right in rem granting its holder a right of use over immovable property and the cost of completing an office building built on the land in question could be included in the taxable amount of a supply, within the meaning of art 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive, where the taxable person had already paid VAT on that value and on that cost, but had also deducted the VAT immediately and in full.