Latest Cases

Criminal law – Trial. The defendant was convicted unanimously of ten counts of indecent assault and four counts of indecency with a child in respect of alleged historical abuse of his step-daughter. The issue on appeal, among other things, was whether the judge's summing up on the burden and standard of proof had been defective. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the judge's summing up had been defective and it could not be said that the verdicts would necessarily have been the same had an appropriate summing up been given. The conviction was quashed. 

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. 

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. 

Copyright – Ownership. The Chancery Division held that, on the true construction of a contract, the claimants did not own the copyrights in songs written by famous reggae musician, Bob Marley. The claim was dismissed. 

Criminal law – Committal. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant's appeal against the dismissal of his claims for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, in circumstances where it had been it was unsurprising that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago had not been prepared to draw the inference that the prosecutor had acted with malice in proceeding with the prosecution against the appellant. 

Judicial review – Pharmaceutical services. Court of Session: In judicial review proceedings in which the owners of a pharmacy challenged a health board's decision authorising a medical group to provide dispensing services to all its registered patients residing in certain communities, the court held that the challenge was not barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence, and the decision was unlawful because the respondents misdirected themselves as to the proper construction and application of paragraph 44 of Sch 5 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and because the review and decision-making processes were conducted in a manner which was procedurally unfair to the petitioners. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There were proceedings concerning a family of Turkish/Cypriot origin that had been broken apart as a result of allegations of extreme violence perpetrated by the father. In a fact finding hearing the Family Division held that the mother and daughters' allegations had been made out and the case had been proved on the balance of probabilities. 

Contract – Consumer contract. The proceedings involved a contract made in the claimant's home that the claimant had purported to cancel. The defendant charged him a cancellation fee and refused to refund him a deposit. In finding for the claimant, the Supreme Court held that a failure by a trader to give written notice of the right to cancel did not deprive a consumer of the statutory right to cancel under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home, or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1816. 

Immigration – Refugee. The claimants, T and N, were Iraqi refugees who had taken refuge in Syria and their cases were referred to the Secretary of State for consideration of their resettlement to the United Kingdom. Their applications were refused on the ground that their resettlement in the UK would not be conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State maintained the decision and the claimants sought judicial review. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the attempt to impose an obligation upon the Secretary of State to consider their applications in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 was unnecessary and would be contrary to the preservation of absolute flexibility. 

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.