Latest Cases

Sentence – Imprisonment. The offender pleaded guilty on the second day of his trial to two counts of vaginal rape (counts 6 and 9) and one count of putting a person in fear of violence by harassment. The counts related to three separate women each of whom had had a relationship with the offender. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that, in the circumstances, a total sentence of 9 years' imprisonment had been unduly lenient and increased the total sentence to one of 12 years' imprisonment. 

Medical practitioner – Professional conduct committee. The appellant consultant ophthalmologist appealed against the Fitness to Practise Panel of the respondent General Medical Council's finding of serious misconduct and its decision to suspend his registration for six months. The Administrative Court, in allowing the appeal, held that it had not been open to infer that the appellant had deliberately withheld from his employer sums of money which he had received from private patients and which he had known he should have paid, and had been deliberately dishonest. It was inappropriate to remit the case because a future panel would reach the same erroneous conclusion. 

Criminal evidence – Evidence of bad character. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against his conviction for rape and assault by beating and held that the directions given by the judge concerning the disclosure of bad character evidence had been appropriate and nothing had occurred which could properly be said to impugn the safety of the convictions. 

Pensions – Pension scheme. The Chancery Division made a number of declarations regarding a proposed amendment to the rules of an occupational pension scheme. It held that, among other things: (i) the proposal would be allowed; (ii) the pension scheme had not become frozen for the purposes of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Deficiency on Winding Up etc) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/3188 and the Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005, SI 2005/678; and (iii) a cassation, under r 4 of the pension scheme, would not qualify as an employment cessation event, so as to trigger s 75 of the Pensions Act 1995. 

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction. The claimant had entered into contracts with clients that were subject to English law and jurisdiction. The clients issued proceedings against the claimant in Germany, resulting in the claimant paying damages. The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant German lawyers in England, alleging that they had induced the claimants to bring proceedings in Germany in breach of their contracts. The defendant was unsuccessful in its challenge against the jurisdiction of the English court. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant's appeal, as the place where the claimant had suffered the damage which formed the basis of its claim was Germany. 

Minor – Abduction. The mother of a young child (S) applied for his summary return from the United Kingdom to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to the mother, the father had wrongfully removed S from the UAE. The father maintained that there had been a planned, consensual relocation. The Family Division held that, on the evidence, S had left the UAE as the result, not of a consensual relocation plan, but because the father had decided to take S away from the mother and also from the country of his habitual residence. It was overwhelmingly in S's welfare interests to return with his mother to the UAE as swiftly as could be arranged. 

Criminal law – Trial. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's appeals against conviction for offences involving a petrol bomb. The court rejected the defendant's principal contention that, having taken a verdict on count 2 (possession of an offensive weapon), the Crown had been barred from further pursuing him on count 1 (possession with intent to cause damage). 

Immigration – European Economic Area nationals. A Pakistan national had married a German national and moved to the United Kingdom where they had two children who were German nationals. They divorced and the wife sought to regularise her position in the UK. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decided that she had a right of residence, both under art 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applying the principles in Zambrano, and under art 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 (on freedom of movement for workers within the Community). It also allowed her appeal under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Secretary of state appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union as the answers to the issues raised were not acte clair. 

Criminal law – Murder. The deceased was killed as a consequence of a fight involving both defendants, C and P. It was the prosecution case that it had been a joint enterprise attack. The expert pathologist was unable to rule out the possibility that the first blow, administered by C, had caused the fatal brain injury. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the defendants' convictions for murder, in circumstances where P had been some distance away when the first blow was struck and a reasonable jury, properly directed could not have been sure that there had already been in place the necessary joint enterprise and the necessary intent. 

Social security – Benefit. The appellant had been granted refugee status and sought recovery of a back-payment of income support to the time of her asylum application. She was refused back-payment and her appeals through the tribunal system were dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that, interpreting s 12 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 in the light of art 23 of the Geneva Convention, there was no entitlement to such back-payments and there was no express or implied obligation to make a lump sum payment representing the difference between the earlier asylum support payments or benefits in kind and mainstream benefits pursuant to art 28 of Council Directive (EC) 2004/83.