Latest Cases

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division refused a defendant barrister's application for leave to appeal against his conviction of cheating the public revenue in circumstances where the defendant challenged the prosecution's late submission of documentary evidence at trial and contended that the judge's summing up was unbalanced, unfair and defective. Although there was no criticism in the submission of the documentary evidence, there was criticism in the manner of the judge's summing up. Nevertheless, the summing up was not significantly inaccurate and was not in any way unfair as to render the conviction unsafe. 

Criminal law – Bail. The claimant was charged with grievously bodily harm with intent and threatening a person with a blade. He was denied bail at the Youth Court and appealed to the Crown Court. The Crown Court judge refused bail and the claimant applied for judicial review. Allowing the claim and quashing the decision to refuse bail upon stringent conditions, the Administrative Court held that in the instant case the reasons given by the judge for refusing bail could not have reasonably been relied upon to deny C bail. The judge had taken into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account at all. 

Sentence – Minimum period of imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of ten years. He applied for a reduction of that tariff. The Administrative Court held that, while the offender had continued to make very good progress in prison, on the evidence, it was not possible to conclude that his progress had been exceptional. The application was dismissed. 

Medical Practitioner – Disciplinary proceedings. The appellant doctor appealed against the decision of the respondent General Medical Council's Fitness to Practice Panel's (the panel) decision that the appellant had conducted a *** examination in the absence of a chaperone and in an inappropriate manner and that his conduct was sexually motivated. The Administrative Court held that panel's primary findings of fact in relation to the manner in which the *** examination had been performed had been founded upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and had been unassailable. However, taking a broad view and putting all the circumstances into the balance, the panel's determination on the issue of sexual motivation had clearly been wrong and that part of the decision would be quashed. 

Criminal law – Appeal. In an unsuccessful appeal against conviction and sentence where the defendant received a nine year sentence for one count of rape, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division provided guidance on the proper approach on deciding whether to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour of a complainant relating to a 'relevant issue in the case' within the meaning of s 41(2) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. In the instant case it was held that the trial judge's ruling not to adduce certain evidence had not deprived the defendant of a fair trial and the nine year sentence he received was not manifestly excessive. 

Insolvency – Jurisdiction. A winding up petition was presented to the Chancery Division in respect of a company in the United Kingdom. Joint provisional liquidators were appointed and the English court ordered that the English provisional liquidation of the company was a main proceeding within art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000. A public prosecutor in Luxembourg applied to a court in Luxembourg for the commencement of a liquidation proceeding in respect of the company there. The Chancery Division granted the joint provisional liquidators' application for a declaration that the public prosecutor's application was stayed by s 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had been convicted of murder of a Korean language student after stabbing her three times in the back. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division after he contended that post-trial accounts of a prosecution witness and fresh evidence indicating someone else committed the murder rendered his own conviction unsafe. Upon analysis of the evidence, it was held that neither the cross-examination of the prosecution witness nor the other evidence led to the conclusion that someone other than the defendant committed the murder. Accordingly, the conviction was deemed safe. 

Negligence – Personal injury. The claimant bought a mountain bike from the defendant and sustained a serious injury following an accident. It was the claimant's allegation that there had been a defect in the bike as purchased and he brought an action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Causation was in issue between the parties as the defendant denied that there had been a defect in the bike when purchased. The Queen's Bench Division held that it was appropriate to infer on the expert evidence that there had been nothing defective about its design, assembly or the steel from which it had been made and that the claimant's case would be dismissed. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (Farmaceutisk) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Farmaceutisk and Tillotts Pharma AG (Tillotts) relating to the application by Tillotts for registration of the word sign 'OCTASA' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by EI du Pont de Nemours and Co (Ei du Pont) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market relating to opposition proceedings between EI du Pont and Mr Enrique Zueco Ruiz concerning the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'ZYTEL' as a Community trade mark.