Latest Cases

Sentence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a total sentence of six years' imprisonment for the offences of attempted rape and sexual assault was not unduly lenient. The judge's reduction of two years from the eight-year starting point for the attempted rape offence was very generous, but was not unduly lenient. 

Criminal evidence – Appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed a defendant's appeal against conviction for possessing a handgun and assault where he alleged that non-disclosure of prosecution material in a Scottish trial had breached his right to a fair trial under art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court held that the lower court had not only identified the correct test concerning the prosecution's failure to disclose identification evidence to the defence which should have been disclosed, but had also applied it to the circumstances of the case. The court also considered the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals, under s 288AA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. 

Prison – Removal of prisoner from one prison to another. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimants' application for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's refusal to transfer the husband to a category B local or short-term prison which was reasonably accessible to the disabled wife. Although there had been breach of the public sector equality duty, s 31(2A) and (2B) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 precluded the court from making a declaration to that effect. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant's application for an interim payment in the amount of £1,203,300, to fund expenses in the present period before trial in about 2.5 years under CPR 25.7(4). 

Criminal law – Trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in relation to the lawfulness of an order for disclosure of closed material made at a criminal trial, when it came to proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The court held, amongst other things, that it would be for the ECtHR to decide at an appropriate time under art 38 of the European Convention on Human Rights, whether any and if so what further disclosure should be made, rather than for the appellant to prejudge its view by insisting on such disclosure as of right under art 34 of the Convention and it would then be for the United Kingdom to consider its position further. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division dismissed applications by the claimant and defendant for summary judgment in respect of a claim for breach of contract and a defence, respectively, where the issue concerned the true consideration due under an asset sale agreement. The evidence currently available did not enable the court to accept that the broadly pleaded case was bound to succeed, nor that it was bound to fail. Further, the court did not accept that the defence was sufficiently shadowy to justify only conditional permission to defend. 

Criminal law – Assault. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's challenge to a simple caution administered on her by the defendant Metropolitan Police Commissioner for an alleged offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Commissioner had not breached para 76 of the Ministry of Justice guidance 'Simple Cautions for Adult Offenders' by having stated that the alleged victim had had a broken nose, when it had only been suspected that her nose had been broken. 

Practice – Chancery Division. The Chancery Division allowed an application by the claimant company to send an analysis of certain documents to the European Commission in the course of proceedings alleging that the defendants (together, Google) had abused a dominant position. There was no suggestion that the analysis was to be used for an improper purpose, and the sending of the analysis would not have a significant effect on the costs in the case. 

Coroner – Inquest. The Divisional Court held that it could not entertain the claimant's application for mandatory orders quashing the original inquest findings into her son's death and directing that a fresh inquest be conducted. Neither an inquest or an investigation had been 'held' within the meaning of s 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 because neither process had been completed, but it would be open to the claimant to invite the coroner to reconsider his decision. 

Arrest – Police. The Divisional Court prohibited the Police Service of Northern Ireland from arresting and transferring the claimant former British soldiers to interview them under caution in relation to the events of Bloody Sunday upon the claimants undertaking that they would attend for an interview. There were no reasonable grounds for the decision to arrest any of the claimants as necessary to allow the prompt and effective investigation.