Latest Cases

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Courts Martial Appeal Court held that a sentence imposed by the Court Martial of nine months' detention for two counts of assault by penetration had been unduly lenient. However, in the circumstances, the court declined to increase the offender's sentence. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to two and-a-half years' imprisonment for wounding with intent, contrary to s 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in circumstances where he had bitten off a sizeable segment of the victim door supervisor's ear, leaving him permanently disfigured. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division increased the sentence to one of four and-a-half years' imprisonment, holding, among other things, that the judge had imposed a sentence which had fallen unjustifiably outside the range identified by the Sentencing Council. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant appealed against the decision of the Fitness to Practise Panel (the FPP) of the respondent General Medical Council in her absence, finding misconduct and deciding to erase her from the register. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal held that the FPP ought to have decided to proceed to hear the witnesses, but only to decide the facts and to seek to notify the appellant, with a view to her attending on the issue of dishonesty. It should have considered, before imposing any sanction whether attempts should have been made to contact the appellant to enable her to put forward any mitigation. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Angolan national sought judicial review of the defendant local authority's assessment of her age as over 18 years. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that the claimant had not been truthful about her age and the age assessment interview had been carried out in a completely fair manner. Accordingly, the claimant had been well over 18 years old when she had entered the United Kingdom and she was presently 22 years old. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The husband appealed against an order made in financial relief proceedings, which effectively shared between the parties (60% to the husband and 40% to the wife) certain shares belonging to the husband, by way of an order for a lump sum or series of lump sums as and when those shares came to be realised. The Family Division, in dismissing the husband's appeal, held, inter alia, that there was plainly no scientific way of evaluating the worth of the post-separation 'growing' of a matrimonial asset. It had to be an exercise of discretion. That was what the judge had carried out based on his overall knowledge of the case and he could not be criticised for his conclusion. 

Human rights – Discrimination. The claimant Irish travellers sought a declaration that s 33(2) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which precluded the making of a home loss payment to a caravan dweller unless no suitable alternative site was available on reasonable terms, was incompatible with art 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with art 8 of the Convention or art 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, or both. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, having properly construed s 33(2) of the Act, held that the analogy the claimants sought to draw between their situation, and that of persons resident in bricks and mortar accommodation was plainly false. 

Libel and slander – Defamatory words. In a defamation claim brought by the claimant against the defendant newspapers the Queen's Bench Division decided as a preliminary issue the meaning of the articles complained of. 

Road traffic – Regulation of traffic. The defendant local authority made an experimental traffic order and subsequently made it permanent (the RTO). The claimant, as a representative of a group opposed to the change, applied, under para 35 of Sch 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for an order quashing the RTO. The Administrative Court, in allowing the application, held that there had been a clear breach of the obligation to hold a public inquiry and, as a result, a failure to comply with a relevant requirement in force before the RTO could be made. The omission had not been an inconsequential failure, as it had created obvious prejudice for the claimant's group. 

Practice – Commercial Court. The Commercial Court considered the claimants' particulars of claim, which ran to 96 pages. The court held that, owing to the length and content of the particulars, they would be struck out, the costs of drafting them would be disallowed and fresh particulars would be drawn up complying with Appendix 4 of the Eighth Edition of the Commercial Court Guide (the Guide). The court stressed the importance of the making of adverse costs orders in cases of flagrant non-compliance with the recommendations of the Guide. 

Extradition – Extradition order. Three appeals against extradition orders were heard together because they raised a common issue concerning the new extradition bar contained in s 12A of the Extradition Act 2003. The Divisional Court gave guidance on the application of s 12A of the Act and quashed the extradition orders against two appellants, as the judicial authorities had not proved that the sole reason for not making the decisions to charge and try them was their absence from the territory. The third appellant's further challenges based on insufficient particulars and dual criminality were rejected.