Latest Cases

Sentencing – Human rights – Order for lifelong restriction – Risk assessment report High Court of Justiciary: In a case in which a High Court judge referred an issue relating to the preparation of a risk assessment report where the court was considering making an order for lifelong restriction on a convicted person to a bench of three judges, the court held that the questions in the reference, namely whether s 210 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 was incompatible with the provisions of arts 6(1) or 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights in so far as the risk assessor might, 'take into account any allegation that the person has engaged in criminal behaviour (whether or not that behaviour resulted in prosecution and acquittal)', fell to be answered in the negative. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The Supreme Court considered issues surrounding 'linguistic analysis reports' provided by a commercial organisation (Sprakab) in asylum appeals. It examined the appropriateness of guidance given in RB (Linguistic evidence – Sprakab) ([2010] UKUT 329 (IAC)) (RB), particularly with respect to the anonymity of Sprakab's individual analysts and linguists. With regard to the particular respondents, the reports' comments on their knowledge of country and culture had been inadequately supported by the authors' expertise. Further, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had treated RB as binding and had failed to give critical analysis to the particular reports relied on. 

European Union – Taxation. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that art 2(4)(b) of Council Directive (EC) 2003/96 had to be interpreted as meaning that the fact of using, first, coal as a heating fuel in the sugar production process and, secondly, carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of that energy product to produce chemical fertilisers did not constitute 'dual use' of that energy product within the meaning of that provision. However, the fact of using, first, coal as a heating fuel in the sugar production process and, secondly, carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of that energy product for the purposes of the same production process did constitute such 'dual use', if it was established that the sugar production process could not be completed without using the carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of coal. 

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered the appeal brought by Mr Guido Strack against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court had not granted in full Mr Strack's form of order requesting annulment of several decisions of the European Commission relating to his applications for access to various documents based on Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents). 

Passing off – Descriptive name. The claimant made and sold hair oil under the name 'Moroccanoil' and the defendant sold hair oil, 'Miracle Oil'. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant for passing off. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the evidence did not lead to the conclusion that members of the public were likely to assume either that Miracle Oil and Moroccanoil were the same thing, that they came from the same manufacture or were otherwise linked in trade. Accordingly, the claimant had failed to establish passing off because the evidence had not supported any likelihood of a misrepresentation by the defendant. 

Magistrates – Warrant. The claimants sought judicial review of the execution of warrants at their homes and business premises by the defendant Environment Agency. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, taking the provisions of s 108(6) of and Sch 18 to the Environment Act 1995 together, seven days' notice was not required to be given in the cases set out in s 108(6)(b) of the Act. Further, the warrant had extended to a bungalow on one property and the defendant's officers had not gone beyond their statutory powers. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Lidl Siftung & Co. KG (Lidl) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market concerning opposition proceedings between A Colmeia do Minho Ldª and Lidl regarding the application by Lidl for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'FAIRGLOBE' as a Community trade mark. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Guinean national sought damages, declarations and an order for an inquiry for her unlawful immigration detention. The Administrative Court granted her claim. Accordingly, the claimant was entitled to damages, but an investigation into the circumstances of the claimant's detention would not be ordered, as they were well documented. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant was pregnant, a drug addict and HIV positive. She appealed against the district judge's order for her extradition to Poland to serve a sentence of 14 months' imprisonment for three offences of theft. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that a number of factors, coupled with the pregnancy of which the judge had been unaware, meant that the case fell into the category where the interference with rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was exceptionally serious so as to justify the refusal to extradite, as it would be disproportionate in the present case. 

Elections – Local government. The petitioners had issued an election petition that sought to declare void the mayoral elections that had been held in Tower Hamlets. The petitioners applied to have the election court held outside the borough because, they submitted, there had been widespread intimidation of electors who did not support the successful candidate, including harassment of one of the petitioners, because witnesses were likely to be subjected to intimidation and because any venue in the borough would be surrounded by large groups of supporters for the successful candidate, as had been the case during the election. The Queen's Bench Division held that there were no special circumstances that justified fixing the place of trial outside the borough where the Commissioner who heard the petition had the power to discuss security with the police and could move the venue at any time, to another one within the borough, if he felt that it had become inappropriate.