Latest Cases

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, increased the offender's sentence for offences of possession of a prohibited firearm from a total of 20 months' imprisonment to a total of five years' imprisonment, in circumstances where the sentencing judge had been very much affected by a medical report on the critical condition of the offender's infant daughter. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that a suspended sentenced imposed for the offence of attempted robbery had been unduly lenient and substituted it for one of five and-a-half years' detention in a young offender institution. The court held that the recorder had given too much weight to the offender's circumstances and the fact that it was his first offence and an offence which had been well out of character. 

Costs – Costs management. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendant contractor for the costs of remedial works. The present proceedings were convened to determine the claimant's costs budget. The Technology and Construction Court held that the costs budget was an entirely unreliable document and that both the costs already incurred by the claimant and its estimated future costs were disproportionate and unreasonable. In the circumstances, the assessed costs/costs budget for the claimant would be a total of £4.28m. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of seven years' imprisonment for participation in a criminal organisation, and facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that the appellant's extradition would not be oppressive on the basis that there was a high risk that he would commit serious acts of self-harm, including suicide. Further, the appellant's extradition would not amount to a disproportionate interference in his or his family's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant businessman and Russian citizen brought an action in libel in the United Kingdom in respect of a publication in the jurisdiction of England and Wales by the defendant who was a journalist and lived in Russia. Steps had been taken to serve the proceedings on the defendant in Moscow, but the validity of those steps was disputed. The Queen's Bench Division held that the proceedings could continue. Directions would be needed, and it would be appropriate to consider not just case management but also costs management. 

Building contract – Insurance. Following an incident, in which a crane toppled from the concrete supporting structure that had been built by the defendant, the claimant insurance company had sought a declaration of non-liability under the defendant's Miles Smith Building Services Combined Contractors' Liability Policy. The judge had refused to grant the declaration sought. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal and made a declaration that: (i) on the proper construction of the foundation clause in the policy, the crane had been a 'superstructure' within the meaning of the policy; (ii) the works carried out by the defendant in constructing the crane base and installing the dowel bars had been foundation works within the meaning of the policy; and (iii) any liability that might be established against the defendant in respect of the damage to the crane itself was a liability excluded under the foundation clause. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. There was before the court a fact finding hearing in relation to allegations by both the mother and the father in relation to each other's behaviours. The Family Court held that none of the mother's allegations, even if proved would justify a cessation of direct contact with the father. 

Prison – Life sentence. The claimant prisoner sought judicial review of the decision to classify him as high escape risk. The Divisional Court, in allowing the application in part, held that, although information relating to the work the claimant had done in prison and the reports in his favour had been omitted from consideration in the initial decision, a subsequent review had been entitled to conclude that the additional information would not materially have affected the decision. Further, the reasons had been adequate and there had been no conflation of the tests for determining security classification and escape risk classification. 

Sentence – Confiscation order. The proceedings concerned whether a substantial breach of s 15(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in conjunction with a substantial breach of s 14 of the Act, rendered the subsequent confiscation proceedings invalid, even if they were completed within two years. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed the defendant's appeal against the confiscation order, in circumstances where the combination of delays and breaches by the prosecution was such as to have deprived the court of the power to make such an order. 

European Union – Consumer protection. The Court of Justice made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 1, 6(1) and section (a) of the first paragraph of art 9 of Council Directive (EEC) 85/374 (on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning liability for defective products). The requests had been made in an appeal on a point of law between Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH (BSMG), and AOK Sachsen-Anhalt — Die Gesundheitskasse and Betriebskrankenkasse RWE, compulsory health insurance organisations, concerning requests for reimbursement of the costs relating to the implantation of pacemakers and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator imported and marketed in the European Union by G. GmbH a company which subsequently merged with BSMG.