Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament, Commission of the European Union and another intervening – WLR Daily

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and others v European Parliament, Commission of the European Union and another intervening (Case C-583/11P); [2013] WLR (D) 370

“An action for annulment of a ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of article 263FEU of the FEU Treaty was available to an individual with a direct concern in an act of general application which was not a legislative act.”

WLR Daily, 3rd October 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Generics (UK) Ltd (trading as Mylan) v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd and another (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted August 1st, 2013 in admissibility, appeals, evidence, law reports, patents by sally

Generics (UK) Ltd (trading as Mylan) v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd and another (No 2)
[2013] EWCA Civ 925; [2013] WLR (D) 316

“Where a patent specification made a technical effect “plausible” it was open to a party to mount a challenge to the existence of that effect by the use of later evidence. There was no principled objection to the admission of evidence as to the true nature of the advance made by the invention in connection with an objection of lack of inventive step.”

WLR Daily, 29th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Fenty and others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (trading as Topshop) and another – WLR Daily

Fenty and others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (trading as Topshop) and another [2013] EWHC 1945 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 310

“Evidence in a trade mark and passing off case of the factual circumstances of a trade by a person in that trade, even when they deployed their experience in that trade to bolster their evidence, was not necessarily expert evidence within the meaning of CPR Pt 35.”

WLR Daily, 5th July 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Do I Want Your Opinion: the use of opinion evidence in law witness statements – Zenith Chambers

Posted June 10th, 2013 in admissibility, evidence, news, witnesses by sally

“Gordon Exall discusses the use of opinion evidence in witness statements. Looking, in particular, at two recent decisions which discuss opinion evidence.”

Full story (PDF)

Zenith Chambers, 6th June 2013

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

Surveillance: RIPA and the Communications Data Bill – Panopticon

“The Communications Data Bill, shelved amid political heavy weather, is back on the agenda in the wake of last week’s Woolwich murder. Today for example, Conservative MP and former policing minister Nick Herbert wrote an article in The Times in support of the Bill and responding to those who have called it a ‘snooper’s charter’.”

Full story

Panopticon, 29th May 2013

Source: www.panopticonblog.com

Comments Off

Public Prosecution Service (Respondent) v McKee (Appellant) – Supreme Court

Public Prosecution Service (Respondent) v McKee (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 32 | UKSC 2012/0007 (YouTube)

Supreme Court, 22nd May 2013

Source: www.youtube.com/user/UKSupremeCourt

Comments Off

JD Wetherspoon plc v Harris and others – WLR Daily

Posted May 3rd, 2013 in admissibility, evidence, law reports, summary judgments, witnesses by tracey

JD Wetherspoon plc v Harris and others: [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch);   [2013] WLR (D)  159

“It was not appropriate to apply for summary judgment after the exchange of witness statements in proceedings alleging fraud and dishonesty where the applications were based on a particular interpretation of facts and on the inferences to be drawn from established facts. Paragraphs in a witness statement containing a recitation of facts based on documents, commentary on those documents, argument, submissions and expressions of opinion, made by a witness who had had no prior involvement with the subject matter of the proceedings were abusive and should be struck out.”

WLR Daily, 1st May 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Covert recordings may be admissible in Employment Tribunals – Technology Law Update

Posted March 19th, 2013 in admissibility, employment tribunals, evidence, news, video recordings by tracey

“As technology becomes more sophisticated, so do the challenges faced by employers.  A seemingly common query relates to the legality of covert recordings made by employees of face to face meetings with managers or colleagues on smart phones or tablets.”

Full story

Technology Law Update, 15th March 2013

Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Plunkett (Daniel): Regina v Plunkett (James) – WLR Daily

Posted March 15th, 2013 in admissibility, appeals, evidence, investigatory powers, law reports by tracey

Regina v Plunkett (Daniel): Regina v Plunkett (James): [2013] EWCA Crim 261;   [2013] WLR (D)  98

“Covert recordings of conversations between defendants which had taken place whilst they were in the rear of a police van were not to be categorised as intrusive surveillance, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, because a police van, used solely for police purposes, was not a private vehicle.”

WLR Daily, 13th March 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Without prejudice communications – 11 Stone Buildings

“When a litigator enters into settlement discussions, the general rule is that the content of those communications are protected by the Without Prejudice Rule and cannot be relied upon as evidence in court if the case doesn’t settle. This rule, however, does not constitute a blanket ban. In this note James Barnard reminds us of the Without Prejudice Rule framework, its recognised exceptions and how the Supreme Court case of Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKSA 44 created another wide-ranging exception.”

Full story (PDF)

11 Stone Buildings, February 2013

Source: www.11sb.com

Comments Off

Regina v Dizaei – WLR Daily

Posted February 21st, 2013 in admissibility, bad character, crime, evidence, law reports, witnesses by sally

Regina v Dizaei [2013] EWCA Crim 88; [2013] WLR (D) 64

“When a court was assessing the probative value of the evidence of bad character of a witness in criminal proceedings, in accordance with the provisions of section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, among the factors relevant to the admissibility judgment, the court should consider whether the admission of such evidence might make it difficult for the jury to understand the remainder of the evidence, and whether its understanding of the case as a whole might be diminished. If the conclusion was that the evidence was not of substantial probative value in establishing propensity or lack of creditworthiness of the witness, or that the evidence was not of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole, or both, the preconditions to admissibility would not established.”

WLR Daily, 14th February 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Faraz – WLR Daily

Posted January 7th, 2013 in admissibility, appeals, evidence, incitement, law reports, terrorism by sally

Regina v Faraz [2012] EWCA Crim 2820; [2013] WLR (D) 1

“Where a defendant was charged with disseminating terrorist publications via a bookshop and associated website which he managed, evidence that named terrorist offenders had possessed similar material was only admissible, if at all, for the very limited purpose of demonstrating that among the readership of the bookshop and website’s publications were people who were prepared to commit terrorist acts. But if the evidence was admitted for that purpose, it was relevant only to the question whether such people were likely to regard the contents of the publication as encouragement to commit terrorist acts. It was not admissible in proof of the fact that people had been so encouraged. It was essential that the judge direct the jury as to the limitations and pitfalls of such evidence.”

WLR Daily, 21st December 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Regina v Clift; Regina v Harrison: [2012] EWCA Crim 2750; [2012] WLR (D) 387 – WLR Daily

Posted December 21st, 2012 in admissibility, evidence, grievous bodily harm, law reports, murder by tracey

Regina v Clift; Regina v Harrison: [2012] EWCA Crim 2750;   [2012] WLR (D)  387

“Where a defendant had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and the victim subsequently died as a result of that harm, the defendant could not automatically be convicted of the victim’s murder. However, pursuant to section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the earlier conviction would be admissible of the fact that the defendant had committed the offence, and if the conviction was proved the burden would then shift to the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that he was not guilty of murder.”

WLR Daily, 18th December 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Supreme court urged to rule on Sikh leader’s claim he is a ‘holy saint’ – The Guardian

Posted November 12th, 2012 in admissibility, news, religious discrimination, Sikhism, succession, Supreme Court by sally

“The supreme court is considering whether it should rule on the spiritual status of a Sikh leader and examine his claim to be a ‘holy saint’.”

Full story

The Guardian, 11th November 2012

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off

A Salutary Lesson on Bad Character – The Devil Is In The Detail – Zenith Chambers

Posted September 25th, 2012 in admissibility, bad character, drug offences, evidence, news by sally

“In a recent Crown Court trial the Prosecution made a Bad Character application alleging that the factual basis of a previous conviction was so similar to the alleged facts of the instant case, that the previous conviction should be admitted. This was propensity with a heavy dollop of similar fact.”

Full story (PDF)

Zenith Chambers, 17th September 2012

Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

Neilly v The Queen – WLR Daily

Neilly v The Queen [2012] UKPC 12; [2012] WLR (D) 144

“When a defendant in a criminal trial had not been put on an identification parade, the decision as to whether to allow a dock identification was a matter for the trial judge in the light of all the relevant circumstances. However where a dock identification was admitted in evidence the trial judge was required to give the jury careful directions as to the dangers of relying on that evidence, and to warn the jury of the disadvantages to the defendant of having been denied the opportunity of participating in an identification parade.”

WLR Daily, 10th May 2012

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Brighton Declaration on ECHR reform adopted – Ministry of Justice

Posted April 23rd, 2012 in admissibility, human rights, judiciary, news by sally

“Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has announced that the UK has negotiated a landmark agreement on reform of the European Court of Human Rights.”

Full story

Ministry of Justice, 20th April 2012

Source: www.justice.gov.uk

Comments Off

The Brighton Declaration and the “meddling court” – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted April 23rd, 2012 in admissibility, courts, human rights, judiciary, jurisdiction, news by sally

“The Brighton Declaration is the latest Declaration (see previously the Interlaken and Izmir Declarations) on the future (and reform) of the European Court of Human Rights made on behalf of the 47 member States to the Council of Europe, the parent organisation for the ECHR. Brighton was the venue, the United Kingdom having taken up the six month Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe late last year.”

Full story

UK Human Rights Blog, 22nd April 2012

Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com

Comments Off

Ken Clarke: ECHR reforms ‘will cut UK’s frustration’ – BBC News

Posted April 23rd, 2012 in admissibility, appeals, courts, deportation, human rights, judiciary, jurisdiction, news by sally

“Ken Clarke has said changes to the European Court of Human Rights will reduce ‘frustration’ over cases such as the proposed deportation of Abu Qatada.”

Full story

BBC News, 22nd April 2012

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Comments Off

Yes, criticise individual cases but Strasbourg court should develop law – The Guardian

Posted April 23rd, 2012 in admissibility, human rights, judiciary, jurisdiction, news by sally

“Report shows most criticism of judgments from European court of human rights is fact-specific.”

Full story

The Guardian, 20th April 2012

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Comments Off