Latest Cases

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The applicant serving life prisoner complained that his whole life order violated art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been no violation of art 3 of the Convention. The power to release, under s 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, exercised in the manner delineated by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in particular, in Attorney General's Reference (No 69 of 2013), R v McLoughlin; R v Newell ([2014] 3 All ER 73), was sufficient to comply with the requirements of art 3 of the Convention. 

Criminal law – Detention in custody. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision to extend his custody time limit. The Divisional Court held that, although no judicial consideration had been given to whether there had been 'good and sufficient cause' for extending the custody time limit, the decision of the first judge to fix a trial date beyond the expiry of the custody time limit had not been amenable to judicial review by virtue of s 29(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Further, the discrete decision of the second judge to extend the time limit contained no discernible error. 

Divorce – Financial proceedings. During the course of divorce proceedings, preliminary issues arose for determination concerning assets which might, or might not, have been within the bankrupt husband's estate. The Family Division held that the family home was held by the wife on trust for the husband subject to a 25% beneficial interest in favour of the husband's adult son from a previous marriage. Further, sums asserted by the son to be due to him from the father's estate were, on the evidence, properly owed to the father and he had not relinquished his right to that money. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants entered into loan arrangements with the first defendant bank's predecessor. They fell into arrears and the bank subsequently appointed receivers. The claimants brought claims alleging that the bank was in breach of contract by appointing receivers. The claimants further alleged that the receivers were in breach of duty in failing to secure best price for properties. In allowing summary judgment against the claimants, the Chancery Division held that there was no evidence of the bank giving up its rights under various security documents, or varying them. The bank had had the right to appoint receivers on an unsatisfied demand. Further, the claim against the receivers had to fail on the facts. 

Registered land – Rectification of Land Register – Standard security – Disposition by creditor on sale. Court of Session: In an action in which the pursuer sought rectification of the Land Register in relation to a property he had purchased from a bank, the bank having obtained a warrant from the court to sell the property under the power of sale in its standard security, without serving a calling-up notice, and the first defender, on the pursuer applying to register the disposition, having deleted the bank's standard security from the charges section of the title sheet but retained entries for the second and third defenders' securities, the court held that on the disposition being duly recorded in the register the property was disburdened of the bank's standard security and of the second and third defenders' securities and the retention of the entries for the latter was an inaccuracy in the register requiring rectification. 

Criminal evidence – Admissibility of evidence. High Court of Justiciary: Refusing an appeal by an appellant against her conviction for possession of a controlled drug on the basis that her detention by police officers was unlawful, and thus evidence of her possession of heroin should not have been allowed, the court held that the officers had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the appellant was involved in a drugs offence: a reasonable person in possession of all the information available to the detaining officers would have suspected criminal behaviour. 

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that concurrent sentences of seven months' imprisonment for drugs offences committed whilst in prison had been unduly lenient, and ordered that each sentence should run consecutively to existing sentences being served. 

Immigration – Asylum – Fresh claim. Court of Session: Dismissing a judicial review petition by a failed Nigerian asylum seeker, challenging a decision refusing to accept that he had made a fresh claim, the court held that the petitioner's further submissions did not introduce material which was significantly different from that which had been previously considered. 

The petitioners were both experienced midwives employed by the employer health board. Both were practising Roman Catholics who objected to 'delegating, supervising and/or supporting staff to participate in and provide care to patients throughout the termination process'. The question was the meaning of the words 'to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection' as set out in s 4 of the Abortion Act 1967. The Supreme Court held that it was unlikely that, in enacting the conscience clause, Parliament had in mind the host of ancillary, administrative and managerial tasks that might be associated with those acts. 

Hospital – Liability for negligence of members of staff. The claimant issued proceedings, contending that the defendant NHS Foundation Trust had handled her birth process negligently, resulting in her having a limited range of motion in her right arm. The Queen's Bench Division held that negligence was established, as the decision not to proceed to caesarean section at 13:50 had lacked logical force. However, the claimant had not established that the delivery had been negligently handled.