Latest Cases

Human rights – Right to life. The applicant (GF) was the wife of a solicitor (PF) murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. It was suspected that elements of the British security services had been involved in the killing. GF's application for judicial review succeeded in part. The Supreme Court held that there was no sustainable evidence that the process by which the decision not to hold a public inquiry into PF's death had been taken had been a sham or that the outcome had been predetermined. Further, there had not been an inquiry compliant with art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights into the death of PF. However, it did not follow that a public inquiry of the type which GF sought had to be ordered.

Sentence – Culpability. The instant case was not a clear case that could be categorised by the factor 'a significant degree of planning' as determinative of culpability, but the defendant's pursuit of the victim had been significant in a different way. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against an extended sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, held that, while the sentences imposed would be regarded as being at the very highest end of the range, they were not manifestly excessive.

Extradition – Right of retrial. Where an individual had been convicted, but that conviction was not final because he had an unequivocal right to a retrial after surrender, he was correctly classified as a convicted person, not an accused person, pursuant to s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, for the purposes of considering the 'passage of time' bar to surrender. The Supreme Court further held that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provided an appropriate and effective alternative means of addressing passage of time resulting in injustice or oppression in cases where the defendant had been convicted in absentia.

Tax – Taxpayer notice. Paragraph 1 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 authorised a taxpayer notice to be issued and sent to a taxpayer who, at the relevant time, had been resident outside the UK. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in allowing the Revenue and Customs Commissioners' appeal, further held that the sending of a taxpayer's notice to the respondent in Dubai had not been shown to contravene any international obligation of the UK.

Extradition – Right of retrial. Where an individual had been convicted, but that conviction was not final because he had an unequivocal right to a retrial after surrender, he was correctly classified as a convicted person, not an accused person, pursuant to s 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, for the purposes of considering the 'passage of time' bar to surrender. The Supreme Court further held that art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provided an appropriate and effective alternative means of addressing passage of time resulting in injustice or oppression in cases where the defendant had been convicted in absentia.

Misrepresentation – Fraudulent misrepresentation. The claimant's claim failed, in a dispute concerning the purchase of the Spanish headquarters of the Santander bank. The Commercial Court held that the Royal Bank of Scotland which, along with the defendant banks, had helped to finance the purchase, had not made false representations concerning the integrity of the process of setting EURIBOR on its own account and as agent for the defendants. The defendants were entitled to declarations that they had acted lawfully.

Immigration – Asylum – Human rights – Removal from UK to Bulgaria – Inhuman or degrading treatment. Court of Session: Allowing a reclaiming motion in judicial review proceedings in which a Syrian asylum seeker challenged the Home Secretary's certification that his claim that returning him to Bulgaria would breach his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment was clearly unfounded, the court concluded that the Lord Ordinary had erred in refusing the petition and holding that there was insufficient evidence from which a First-tier Tribunal would be entitled to conclude that if the petitioner were returned to Bulgaria there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk that the conditions there would amount to a violation of his rights under art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: on the basis of the information before the Lord Ordinary there was information sufficient at least to raise a case to be tried as to whether the enforced return of the petitioner to Bulgaria would violate his art 3 rights, and the court was not persuaded that he must necessarily fail.

Civil procedure – Order for inspection of documents – Recall of order. Court of Session: In an application in which the noter sought recall of order for inspection of documents, granted on the ex parte application of the petitioner in proceedings for that purpose under s 1 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972, on the basis of a failure to disclose material information to the court at the time of the grant of the order, the court refused the motion for recall in relation to the grounds in the petition which were unaffected by the nondisclosure and put the matter out for a further hearing confined to consideration of that part of the motion that remained (ie that part of the petitioner's case to which the nondisclosure related).

Environmental protection – Road and adjacent land – Litter abatement order. Sheriff Court: In an action in which the pursuer asked the court to make a litter abatement order in relation to an 6.8-mile stretch of the A96 dual carriageway in Aberdeenshire, the court was not satisfied that the pursuer had proved his case with regard to the area to which his complaint related, namely the entire 6.8-mile stretch of road and on that basis it refused his crave for a litter abatement order: and in any event the defenders had proved that it was not practicable for them to comply with their duties under s 89(1) and (2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to the entirety of that stretch of road at all times.

Sentence – Pre-sentence report. The judge should have obtained a pre-sentence report before proceeding to sentence the defendant to 12 months' imprisonment for an offence of affray to which he had pleaded guilty and the judge should have suspended the sentence. As the defendant had served six months' imprisonment, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that it would not be right to suspend the sentence so that the defendant had hanging over his head the prospect of re-imposition of the sentence should he re-offend and substituted a sentence of six months.