‘The law in respect of pre-nuptial agreements is developing rapidly.
Parties have always been free to make their own agreements or arrangements in the past, but it has been an established truth that you cannot oust the jurisdiction of the court.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 20th February 2014
‘On 18 February 2014, a specially constituted five-judge Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) handed down its judgment in the latest (but not necessarily the last) round of the Westminster vs Strasbourg battle over whole life tariffs. Much has been written already about the effect of the judgment. Some of it of questionable accuracy, quality and usefulness. [ … ] This article will attempt to provide a concise summary of the issues and effect of the judgment.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 19th February 2014
‘Jokers’ Masquerade, a fancy dress online retailer, has been ordered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to take down the pictures of its “golly” costumes from its website.
The ASA found the depiction of the costume to be racist. It ruled the pictures had to be taken down from the website under rule 4.1 of the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) code, which stipulates “marketing communications must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence”.’
Independent, 19th February 2014
‘The Court of Appeal has today [18 February] ruled that judges can continue to impose whole life orders in accordance with Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. On the facts of two individual cases, the Court increased the sentence of Ian McLoughlin to one of a whole life term for the murder of Graham Buck. The Court dismissed an appeal by Lee Newell against his whole life order for the murder of Subhan Anwar.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th February 2014
‘The High Court has rejected all the arguments supporting David Miranda’s application for judicial review of his detention at Heathrow Airport in August last year. In a highly readable and pungent judgment, Laws LJ has some robust things to say about the vaunting of journalistic interests over public security in the guise of Article 10, and the “mission creep” of requirements demanded by the courts for state action to be considered “proportionate”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th February 2014