Latest Cases

Criminal law – Rape. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division considered appeals by two defendants who had been convicted of various sexual offences arising out of the grooming of young girls for sexual purposes. In dismissing the first defendant's appeal against his conviction, the court considered issues of consent in respect of the rape counts and the requirement for 'travel' in respect of the offence of trafficking within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation under s 58(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The second defendant's sentence was reduced by four years to a total of eight years' detention, in circumstances where the combination of concurrent and consecutive sentences had resulted in sentence which was manifestly excessive. 

Human rights – Right to life. The claimant mother of a soldier unlawfully killed in Iraq appealed against the Divisional Court's decision that there was no duty to investigate under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, alternatively, the duty had been discharged. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that an art 2 compliant investigation had been required, as there had been a failure of system or control. However, an investigation undertaken by the Army Board of Inquiry and a coroner's inquest had discharged that obligation. 

Employment Appeal Tribunal – Discrimination. The employee claimed to have been the victim of racial discrimination, and had subsequently been dismissed by reason of long health related absence. An employment tribunal found that she had suffered discrimination on the grounds of race, and had been unfairly dismissed, but that the two issues were not related. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), dismissing the employee's appeal, held that the claim did not break the high threshold of a perversity challenge. The EAT further dismissed an appeal for compensation due to ill health caused by discrimination, and appeals as to the levels of compensation awarded for injury to feelings and unfair dismissal. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The appellant was a doctor whose services were provided to the first respondent NHS Trust, through the second respondent. He brought a number of claims before an employment tribunal (the tribunal), including claims for racial discrimination and detrimental treatment due to 'whistleblowing'. The tribunal found that the appellant was not an employee or 'worker' for the purposes of s 230 (3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), dismissing the appellant's appeal, held that the tribunal had been entitled to find hat the appellant was, in fact, a 'client or customer' for the purposes of s 230(3)(b) of the Act, as the appellant was free to work as and when he wanted, and the work undertaken for the respondents was not exclusive. The EAT further held that the appellantt had implicitly abandoned his argument under s 43K(1)(a) of the Act, by not pursuing the argument against the respondents. 

Misrepresentation – Damages. The claimant claimed misrepresentation and rescission in respect of the purchase of a car from the defendant. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against the judge's finding that the claimant was entitled to rescind the contract and recover the purchase price. In the circumstances, the claimant was entitled to rescind the contract. If it was right that rescission should (still) be the normal remedy for misrepresentation, unless restitution was truly impossible, the claimant should be able to recover the purchase price. Lapse of time on its own could not be a bar to rescission in the present case. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The claimant's claim for a payment under the law of restitution of £80,000 and damages for false imprisonment in relation to a period of two days which he had spent in prison for failing to pay the sum due under a confiscation order had been struck out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the claimant's appeal, held that, in the circumstances, the claimant had no case in restitution and the claim in false imprisonment also failed. Accordingly, the judge had been right that the claimant's claims should be struck out. 

Landlord and tenant – Action for possession. Following an appeal and many other applications by the tenant against his eviction for non-payment of rent, the Queen's Bench Division dismissed all application as being without merit. There had been no defence to the possession claim in circumstances where the defendant had been notified by the landlord of the change in ownership under s 3 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. 

Coroner – Inquest. The claimant applied to quash the inquest into her son's death in a Dubai prison in which the medical cause of death was described as 'unascertained'. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been an insufficiency of inquiry, as the coroner had failed to seek the attendance, whether in person or by video link, of relevant witnesses from Dubai. Accordingly, it was necessary and desirable in the interests of justice that another investigation and inquest should be held. 

Immigration – Leave for indefinite stay. The claimant Irish national issued judicial review proceedings, effectively to establish that he had a right to reside in the United Kingdom as a qualified person, which would benefit his brother, G's, application for a permanent residence card. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, since G's second application for a permanent residence card remained outstanding, the claimant's application was premature. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Privy Council, dismissed the appellants' appeals against their convictions for murder and, in refusing leave to appeal against sentence, held that it had no jurisdiction to order the commutation of the death sentences which had been lawfully passed. It held that it had not had jurisdiction to order commutation of the sentence in Matthew v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] All ER (D) 116 (Jul) or in Ramdeen v Secretary of State for Trinidad and Tobago [2014] UKPC 7, and that those decisions should not be followed.