“The Supreme Court has had its first (and perhaps last) look at an issue arising from the phone hacking litigation against the News of the World newspaper.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th July 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Individuals’ right not to self-incriminate themselves is lost if it is alleged that they misused confidential technical or commercial information, the UK Supreme Court has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 5th July 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
Phillips v News Group Newspapers Ltd and another [2012] UKSC 28 ; [2012] WLR (D) 193
“The privilege against self-incrimination did not entitle a private investigator to refuse to comply with an order in civil proceedings requiring him to disclose the identity of those who had instructed him to intercept mobile phone voicemail messages containing confidential information of a commercial nature.”
WLR Daily, 4th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The phrase ‘technical or commercial information or other intellectual property’ within the definition of ‘intellectual property’ in section 72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was apt to embrace telephone voice messages said to have been intercepted by a private investigator on the telephones of individuals; and the effect of that finding was that the privilege against self-incrimination on which the interceptor might otherwise have relied was removed.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal today (1 February) dismissed Mr Glenn Mulcaire’s appeal against an order that he provide information to claimants in the phone hacking litigation. The Court (Lord Judge, Lord Neuberger and Maurice Kay LJ) unanimously upheld the rulings of Mann J and Vos J that, as a result of the operation of section 72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, Mr Mulcaire was not entitled to rely on his privilege against self-incrimination (‘PSI’).”
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st February 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal, has lost his appeal against an earlier high court ruling requiring him to reveal who at the News of the World instructed him to hack into Steve Coogan’s voicemails.”
The Guardian, 1st February 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal will next Wednesday (1 February) decide whether the private investigator at the centre of the News of the World (NoW) phone hacking scandal must disclose who instructed him to intercept voicemails.”
The Lawyer, 26th January 2012
Source: www.thelawyer.com
“Judgement has been reserved over a private investigator’s appeal against two court orders that may force him to reveal who ordered him to hack phones.”
BBC News, 29th November 2011
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Reliance on evidence that emerged from questioning a person without access to a lawyer did not invariably breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6. The principle established by Salduz v Turkey (36391/02) (2009) 49 EHRR 19 did not apply to questioning outside a police station.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th October 2011
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“As reporters wait, tweet-fingers poised, for such nuggets of information as Rebekah Brooks may dangle before MPs this afternoon, constitutional lawyers will be much more interested in any excuses she may give for not answering questions.”
The Guardian, 19th July 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“People accused of misusing confidential commercial or technical information have lost the right to avoid self-incrimination in court cases, following a High Court ruling.”
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd March 2011
Source: www.out-law.com
Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and another; Coogan v Same [2011] EWHC 349 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 65
“The words ‘technical or commercial information’ in the definition of ‘intellectual property’ in section 72(5) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, section 72 (1) of which provided for the withdrawal of privilege against self or spousal incrimination in proceedings for, inter alia, infringement of rights pertaining to any intellectual property, meant technical or commercial information which could be protected by action.”
WLR Daily, 28th February 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“An accused’s rights would, in principle, be irretrievably prejudiced if incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer were admitted in evidence at trial. Accordingly, s 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 should be read and given effect so as to preclude the admission of such evidence, unless in the particular circumstances of the case there had been compelling reasons for restricting access to a lawyer.”
WLR Daily, 26th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v K (Matrimonial proceedings: Privilege against self-incrimination)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
“While information disclosed under compulsion in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings was not admissible in criminal proceedings, admissions made in withoutprejudice negotiations were not inadmissible.”
The Times, 19th August 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
R v K(A) [2009] EWCA Crim 1640; [2009] WLR (D) 269
“A party to ancillary relief proceedings was not entitled to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to withhold information about his income and assets that exposed him to a risk of prosecution but since he would in those circumstances be acting under compulsion the information he provided would not be admissible against him in criminal proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal
“The court had power to order the examination of a bankrupt be conducted in private where foreign criminal proceedings had been instituted against him.”
The Times, 27th March 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Rottmann v Brittain; In re Rottmann (a bankrupt); [2009] WLR (D) 101
“The court had power to suspend the public examination of a bankrupt pursuant to s 290 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and order the examination to be conducted in private where foreign criminal proceedings had been instituted against the bankrupt.”
WLR Daily, 18th March 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in once of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Court of Appeal
“The key or password which provided access to an encrypted computer file was a fact. It did not constitute an admission of guilt. But knowledge of the key might be incriminating if the data contained incriminating material.”
The Times, 15th October 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R v S (F) and A(S); [2008] WLR (D) 313
“The key or password to an encrypted computer file was a fact which did not constitute an admission of guilt. Only knowledge of it might be incriminating if the data contained incriminating material.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2008
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
