Latest Cases

Sentence – Imprisonment. In considering appeals regarding alleged breaches of art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of delays towards post-tariff release of prisoners serving life or indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP), the Supreme Court accepted the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights conclusion in (James v United Kingdom (Application Nos 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09) (2012)33 BHRC 617 that the purpose of the sentence included rehabilitation in relation to prisoners subject to life and IPP sentences in respect of whom shorter tariff periods had been set. The Supreme Court further accepted as implicit in the scheme of art 5 that the state was under a duty to provide an opportunity, reasonable in all the circumstances, for such a prisoner to rehabilitate himself and to demonstrate that he no longer presented an unacceptable danger to the public. A duty to facilitate release could and should be implied as an ancillary duty - a duty not affecting the lawfulness of the detention, but sounding in damages if breached. 

Crown Court – Sentence. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, amended the defendant's sentence in circumstances where the judge had imposed a sentence which did not comply with the requirements of the relevant legislation. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant applied for the quashing of the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to dismiss his appeal against the decision of the second defendant local planning authority to refuse planning permission for a proposed development of eight dwellings. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that, contrary to the claimant's submission, the inspector had considered that the planning permission granted in respect of another site had been immaterial and he had been entitled to have come to that conclusion. 

Town and Country Planning – Development. By an application, under s 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the claimant sought to quash a decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State to allow an appeal against the decision of the second defendant local authority, and to grant planning permission to extend a motor repair garage and retrospectively to extend rear parking. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held, inter alia, that the inspector's conclusion that the increase in activity at the rear area of the site had not been material had not arguably been outside the range of legitimate conclusions to which she had been entitled to have come. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the application brought by Inter-Union Technohandel GmbH (Inter-Union) for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Inter-Union and Gumersport Mediterranea de Distribuciones, SL (Gumersport) regarding the application by Gumersport for registration of a figurative sign depicting the word 'PROFLEX' as a Community trade mark. 

Human Rights – Right to fair trial. The applicant complained that the presence of retired and serving police officers on the jury, which had convicted him of murder, violated his right to a fair trial, as provided in art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights, in dismissing the application, held that there was no evidence of actual partiality on the part of either the retired or the serving officer during the trial. Having regard to all the considerations, the safeguards present at the applicant's trial had been sufficient to ensure the impartiality of the jury which had tried the applicant's case. 

Criminal evidence – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal against convictions for murder, attempted murder and possession of a firearm, held that new material relating to the treatment of gunshot residue evidence might reasonably have affected the decision of the trial jury so that the convictions were no longer safe. 

Contract – Construction. The proceedings concerned four appeals from arbitration awards, which raised questions of interpretation of the cancellation provisions in four materially identical shipbuilding contracts between the buyers and the shipbuilders. The Commercial Court held, inter alia, that, on the facts pleaded by the shipbuilder in its defence and counterclaim submissions in the arbitrations, and on a true construction of the contracts between the parties, the buyers had, in each case, been entitled to cancel the contract and to repayment of the instalments of the price paid by them. 

Local government – Control of dogs. Sheriff Court: Allowing an appeal against a sheriff's interlocutor ordering the destruction of the appellant's dog and interdicting him from owning a dog for two years following an incident in which the dog bit a child on the face, the court held that the sheriff was entitled to conclude that the dog was dangerously out of control in a public place but he had failed to consider properly a dog control notice as an alternative to destruction and it followed that the appeal should be allowed as to the order disqualifying the appellant from owning a dog. 

Town and country planning – Enforcement notice. The appellant appealed against the decision of the inspector appointed by the first respondent Secretary of State, upholding an enforcement notice issued by the second respondent local planning authority, alleging that she had erected a dwelling without planning permission. The Planning Court, in allowing the appeal in part, held that the inspector's decision letter had failed to grapple with the question of what operations had been carried out. However, he had not erred by failing to consider whether some steps short of complete demolition would suffice to remedy the breach of planning control.