Latest Cases

Firearms – Possession of firearm without a certificate. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for possessing a firearm without a firearm certificate contrary to s 1(10(a) of the Firearms Act 1968, in circumstances where the defendant had been in possession of two flash eliminators but not in possession of any prohibited weapon or firearm. The court held that, on the evidence, the proviso at the end of s 57 of the Act, which envisaged an item being an accessory to something which was not a controlled firearm, had not arisen. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence – Parliamentary privilege. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal by an appellant who was charged with perjury and who objected to the admissibility at his trial of evidence of the asking of certain questions of him by the accused in another, earlier trial on a charge of perjury, an objection which the judge repelled, the court held that for the Crown to lead evidence of a passage in the transcript, where reference was made to the appellant having given evidence before a Parliamentary select committee, would be to offend against the privilege of Parliament or, to put it differently, would lead the High Court of Justiciary to intrude upon an area where it had no jurisdiction. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, in a tort based claim brought by seven Malaysia born claimants, against the British Government in respect of treatment experienced in Malaysia after the period 1944 to 1957 after independence was agreed, held that once the true legal context of the claim had been identified there had been no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim as s 1(2)(b) of the Federation of Malaya Independence Act (FMIA) made provision for the establishment of the Federation of Malaya as an independent sovereign country within the Commonwealth and for the termination of Her Majesty's sovereignty and jurisdiction in respect of the Malay States. 

Insurance – Indemnity insurance. The defendant insurance company, Zurich, refused to indemnify the claimant after an individual suffered a serious injury when using a gun to attach wire together. The Commercial Court held that the refusal to indemnify had been mistaken and that Zurich was obliged to indemnify under the policy. 

Criminal evidence – Perjury – Relevancy of indictment. High Court of Justiciary: In a case in which the accused challenged the relevancy of the indictment containing a charge of perjury, it being alleged that he had perjured himself when giving evidence as a defence witness at a trial for perjury (the original trial), the court held that the false evidence alleged in the indictment was not relevant evidence at the original trial and the charge of perjury in the indictment was irrelevant. 

Negligence – Duty to take care. The claimant had sustained severe injuries when a collision occurred between the claimant's bicycle and the defendant's car, causing the claimant to fall sideways on to the road. The Queen's Bench Division held that, in the circumstances, primary liability was established but that the appropriate apportionment of fault for the claimant was 25 per cent. 

Pleading – Amendment. The claimants brought proceedings alleging negligence by the first defendant in the design of an investment strategy for a pension fund and alleged mismanagement by the second defendant of the fund's investments. The claimants applied for permission to amend the particulars of claim and the first defendant applied to strike out part of the particulars of claim or, alternatively, for further information. The Chancery Division allowed the first main amendment to the particulars of claim and disallowed the second. The application for strike out was refused, but the second defendant was entitled to the further information it sought. Further, the claimants were required to re-plead their case. 

Criminal evidence – Rape – Sufficiency of evidence – Mutual corroboration. High Court of Justiciary: Allowing an appeal against conviction on two charges of rape, the court held that what was libelled in charge 5 of the indictment (a charge of assault), being neither an allegation of rape nor an allegation of conduct having any similarity to rape, was not available to corroborate what was libelled in the two charges of rape, and the appellant's conviction on those charges must be quashed. 

Medical negligence – Negligent surgery/ failure to organise appropriate surgery – Quantum. Court of Session: In an action in which the defenders admitted liability for negligent operations on the pursuer, who had fractured the neck of his left femur in a fall, and negligent failure to organise appropriate surgery when he was suffering chronic infection, which resulted in him becoming effectively wheelchair‑bound, the court held that an appropriate award for solatium was £135,000, that no deduction in relation to accommodation costs should be made because the pursuer now had a bigger and better property, that a total of 49 hours of care per week should be allowed, but that the costs of setting up and administering a personal injury trust and the costs of a case manager were not recoverable from the defenders. 

Child – Care. A baby, M, died whilst in the care of his mother and her partner, A. After his death, M was found to have sustained bruises and a fractured right tibia. The mother subsequently gave birth to another child and, in view of the circumstances of M's death, the local authority began care proceedings. In the present fact-finding proceedings, the authority did not seek to argue that either the mother or A were responsible for M's death. Rather, the focus was on the causes of the fracture and bruises, and whether M was neglected by his mother and A. The Family Division, on the evidence, made some, but not all, of the findings sought by the authority.