Latest Cases

Criminal law – Double jeopardy. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with sodomy in relation to an 11-year old complainer, having been acquitted in 2009 of a charge that, between the same dates and at the same place, he used lewd, indecent and libidinous practices towards the same complainer, and whose plea in bar of trial founding on s 7 of the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 was repelled, the court held that the act now charged (sodomy) did not arise out of 'the same, or largely the same, acts' as those lewd practices originally libelled: the single occasion act of sodomy was not inextricably linked to the various acts of touching libelled in the earlier indictment. 

Immigration – Detention. The Administrative Court, in allowing the claimant non-Arab Darfuri's claim for judicial review, held that it was beyond belief how anyone could possibly reasonably have believed that there had been very exceptional circumstances for the claimant's immigration detention. Further, the test for the purpose of certification of her human rights claim as clearly unfounded had clearly not been met, as the arguable real risk of refoulement had not been taken into account. 

Practice – Transfer of proceedings from or to the Technology and Construction Court. The Technology and Construction Court dismissed the claimant's application to transfer his claim brought against the defendant in the Central London County Court (Technology and Construction List), into the present court. It was not appropriate for the low-value claim to be transferred. 

Contempt of court – Juror. High Court of Justiciary: Dismissing a petition to the nobile officium by a petitioner who was selected for jury service at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court and was found in contempt of court after she informed the sheriff clerk that she had checked Facebook because she thought she knew the sister of a Crown Witness who had given evidence on the second day of the trial, the court held that the petitioner was in contempt because in general terms and in more specific terms in relation to the internet and Facebook the sheriff had given the jury a clear instruction not to make enquiries in relation to the case and the petitioner had disobeyed it. 

Immigration – Detention. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claim by the claimant that he was entitled to damages following detention for false imprisonment arising out of detention by the defendant at an Immigration Removal Centre. In so doing, he found that the defendant had breached his own rules in in deciding to maintain detention despite a report being made under rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules; SI 2001/238. 

Contract – Construction. The Technology and Construction Court held that the applicant company's application to strike out the Pt 20 claim brought against it, or to obtain summary judgment, would fail where the applicant was unable to demonstrate that the first and second defendant companies had no real prospect of succeeding on the Pt 20 claim. 

European Union – Contract. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal brought by the European Commission, by which the Commission had sought to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in ANKO v Commission: T-117/12, by which the General Court had ordered the Commission to pay to ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias certain sums, plus interest, the payment of which had been suspended on the basis of Section II.5(3)(d) of the general terms and conditions included in Annex II to the subsidy contracts relating to certain projects. 

Criminal evidence and procedure – Judge's charge – Mixed statements by accused. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was convicted of robbery and murder, attempting to defeat the ends of justice and possessing heroin, who contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury as to the significance as evidence of the exculpatory parts of mixed statements he had made, the court held that the jury were misdirected, they were then correctly directed, at least in relation to one statement, but immediately thereafter again misdirected in a fundamental respect, and the misdirection had led to a miscarriage of justice. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to Poland for one offence because the 'dual criminality' test had not been satisfied, but dismissed his appeal with respect to the second offence, which was equivalent to the English offence of theft. It further rejected the appellant's appeal based on art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Contract – Penalty. Having heard two appeals in two separate proceedings concerning the principles underlying the law relating to contractual penalty clauses (the penalty rule), the Supreme Court allowed the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal. The Court decided that none of the terms impugned on the two appeals contravened the penalty rule and further, that the charge in issue in the second appeal did not infringe the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, SI 1999/2083.