Latest Cases

Criminal law – Appeal. The case concerned the sentencing of a defendant to 12 years' detention following conviction for the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide pursuant to s 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 (the offence), and his appeal against that sentence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in its judgment, provided guidance on the relevant factors a court would have to take into consideration when dealing with cases concerning the offence. On consideration of the specific facts of the present case, the defendant's sentence of 12 years was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 10 years' detention in a Young Offender Institution. 

Employment – Discrimination. The employment tribunal (the tribunal) found two complaints of direct racial discrimination made by the employee against the employer South Wales Police Authority's personnel made out. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the tribunal's reasoning for extending time had been flawed, but that the findings on the complaints had not been perverse. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the employer's appeal, held that there had been no evidence that the personnel's conduct had been motivated by the employee's race. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant company applied for judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decision to approve an order (the order) made under the Planning Act 2008 in relation to a nationally significant infrastructure project, and his decision not to use his power to revoke the order. Dismissing the claim, the Administrative Court held that in the instant case: (i) adequate reasons had been given; and (ii) the requirement for an up-to-date Environmental Impact Assessment had been fulfilled. 

Sentence – Forfeiture order. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal by way of case stated against the Crown Court's decision to uphold the forfeiture order made by the magistrates' court. It had been perverse for the Crown Court to find that the sum had been recoverable property under s 304 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

Extradition – Extradition hearing. The Administrative Court allowed the appellant's appeal against his extradition to Poland on the ground that, in the circumstances of the case, his return would be a disproportionate interference with the rights of the appellant and his immediate family pursuant to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Data protection – Processing of information. The claimant sought the disclosure of the names of three Financial Services Authority officials. The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (the FTT) ordered disclosure, but the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) reversed that decision. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that to disclose the names of the three individuals would be to disclose their personal data. A name was personal data unless it was so common that, without further information, a person would remain unidentifiable despite its disclosure. Further, the FTT had been wrong to apply the notions in Durant v Financial Services Authority ([2003] All ER (D) 124 (Dec)). 

Immigration – Deportation. The Iranian claimant applied for judicial review by which he sought a declaration that his immigration detention by the defendant Secretary of State had been unlawful and that his rights under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. He applied for a mandatory order for his release, and damages for false imprisonment. Dismissing his claim, the Administrative Court held that at the time of the instant proceedings, deportation had been a realistic prospect. Further, the Secretary of State had acted with reasonable diligence to effect removal, in the very difficult circumstances that had pertained in Iran. Finally, there had been a risk of re-offending and absconding and the continuing detention had not been unreasonable in all the circumstances. 

Landlord and tenant – Rent. The claimant appealed against the refusal to set aside a possession order for rent arrears. The judge held that the notice under s 8 of the Housing Act 2004 had been valid and that there had been no power to set aside the possession order made in the presence of both parties, such that a formal application for permission to appeal was required. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the notice had not been defective, as it had given the claimant sufficient notice to enable her to claim that the rent had not been lawfully due. Further, the order for a formal application for permission to appeal had been beyond reproach. 

Negligence – Information or advice. The claimants brought an action in negligence against the defendant solicitors. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimants had a justifiable grievance about the service that they received from the defendant. Moreover, they had taken reasonable steps to respond to the situation in which they found themselves by expending money which was intended to, and in the event did, ameliorate their position. However, because of the way in which they went about their mitigation, the law was unable to offer them anything substantial by way of redress for the defendant's negligence. 

University – Examination. The claimant medical student failed his final year exams on the first and second attempt. His appeal was unsuccessful and he applied for judicial review of the way in which his grade had been calculated and the conduct of the appeal process. The Administrative Court dismissed his claim as the university had acted in compliance with the relevant handbook and the appeal had been conducted reasonably and rationally.