Latest Cases

Sentence – Confiscation order. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against a confiscation order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). The Court held that it would be disproportionate, at least when VAT output tax had been accounted for to the Revenue and Customs Commissioners, to make a confiscation order calculated on the basis that that tax, or a sum equivalent to it, had been 'obtained' by the defendant for the purposes of POCA. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the Secretary of State's appeal against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) that the respondent's break in dependency from her mother had not interrupted her residence so as to prevent her from acquiring a permanent right to residence under reg 15(1)(b) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations, SI 2006/1003. The tribunal had been wrong to hold that the provisions of reg 3(2) of the Regulations could be applied to the present case by analogy. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court declared that the claimant had been unlawfully detained for a period of 13 months. There had been no unlawful delay at the start of the claimant's detention, but after it had been commented that an impasse had been reached, it had been unreasonable to continue detention and release under a strict contact management regime had been appropriate. 

Town and country planning – Wind farm. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellants' appeal against the refusal of the Scottish courts to quash consent given under s 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 by the Scottish Ministers to Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm Ltd for the construction and operation of wind turbines in Aberdeenshire in respect of the transmission of electricity. 

Practice – Striking out. The Chancery Division dismissed an application for summary judgment or, alternatively, to strike out the claimant's claim, in an action concerning alleged negligent tax advice. The court held that it would be wholly wrong to dismiss the claim at the present stage. 

Disclosure and inspection of documents – Order for disclosure. The Commercial Court dismissed applications by the claimant company for specific disclosure and further information from the defendant, Barclays Bank plc, against which a claim had been brought for allegedly mis-selling an interest rate swap. The court was not satisfied that the documents would be relevant and, therefore, admissible as similar fact evidence. Further, to require Barclays to undertake the search and disclosure exercise proposed would be disproportionate and oppressive. 

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).