Latest Cases

Criminal law – Sexual assault. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, considered the case of a defendant who had been convicted of both sexual assault contrary to s 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and robbery contrary to s 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968, arising out of the same incident. The court allowed the defendant's appeal against sentence to a limited extent but held that the judge had been perfectly entitled to move outside the recommended range for the combination of two offences, if he had intended to pass concurrent terms. 

Execution – Charging order. The claimant issued CPR Pt 8 proceedings to enforce a charging order. The defendant produced a declaration of trust, which recited that the lease of the property in question had been granted to her in her capacity as a trustee. Other evidence produced included a transcript of a 1996 judgment in respect of other proceedings brought against the defendant. The master was not persuaded as to the authenticity of the declaration of trust and made an order enforcing the final charging order. The defendant appealed. The Chancery Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the master was bound to address what the district judge, in the 1996 judgment, had said about the material before him, even if the master had not had a copy of that material. 

Adoption – Practice. The parents were convicted of child cruelty and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment each. Two of the parents' children were placed for adoption and suitable families were found to adopt them. The Family Division considered whether to make an order allowing the forenames and surnames of the children to be changed to protect their anonymity from a campaign aimed against any prospective adopters. The court held that there was no alternative but to make the order sought. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. On an application for review of the offender's minimum term under para 3 of Sch 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Queen's Bench Division held that the appropriate minimum term was 14 years' imprisonment less 184 days spent on remand. The court held that there had been exceptional and outstanding progress so as to justify a reduction in the minimum term. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned an appeal against a ruling that the powers of the defendant Independent Police Complaints Commission, when reporting on a 'special requirements' investigation of a compliant about a police officer's conduct, were confined to stating whether the officer had a case to answer in misconduct proceedings and did not extend to expressing findings on the reasonableness and/or legality of the officer's conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the defendant's appeal, held that, in a 'special requirements' investigation, it was beyond the powers of the investigators to purport, themselves, to decide the merits of a case that they considered had called for an answer. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Poland to face sentences for possession of drugs and appropriating an identity document. The Administrative Court held that the identity document offence had not amounted to the offence under s 25 of the Identity Cards Act 2006, let alone any offence involving dishonesty. Accordingly, that particular offence had not been an extradition offence and the appellant would not be returned in relation to it. However, without the identity document offence there was time to be served and there was no reason for a decision that return would be disproportionate. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in considering a father's appeal against a decision to refuse his application for permission to revoke placement orders in respect of two of his sons, held that the judge had been wrong to conclude that there had not been a change in circumstances sufficient to allow him to proceed to the second stage of the relevant test, namely whether leave should be granted. 

Insurance – Claim. The proceedings arose out of a serious fire at the Sugar Hut Club, Essex in 2009. A dispute arose as to, inter alia, the amount of business interruption losses to which the claimants were entitled. In particular, the parties disagreed as to the calculation of the overall loss of turnover. The Commercial Court held that the claimants were entitled to recover the net sums as calculated in accordance with the judgment, using a modified version of the claimants' expert's approach, together with interest. 

Employment – 'Worker'. The employment tribunal had decided, as a preliminary issue, that the claimants were 'workers' for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1988, thereby entitling them to pursue claims for national minimum wage and holiday pay. The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the employer's appeal against that finding, deciding that the tribunal had not approached the question of worker status correctly and had not given sufficient reasons for its decision. The matter was remitted to be heard afresh. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority's grant of planning permission for the erection of two detached industrial buildings, which it acknowledged would cause harm to heritage assets. The Planning Court dismissed all but one of the claimant's grounds of challenge. However, it postponed making any final order until after the Secretary of State had had a reasonable period of time to consider whether he would wish to call the application in for decision by him.