‘Theresa May, expected to shortly emerge as the “stop Boris” prime ministerial candidate in this post-referendum world, kept her head down during the Brexit campaign apart from one notable intervention.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 4th July 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘A claimant who only beat his part 36 offer at trial because of the interest on the damages awarded through to judgment is not entitled to enhanced costs, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is the red button for the nuclear option of withdrawal from the EU, and in its design, it was never really, truly envisioned to be pressed. Without testing, and without precedent, we are left with no idea of the potential fallout of pressing that red button. Compared to the quasi-constitutionism of Article 2 TEU evoking the values ‘common to the Member States’ of ‘pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women’; or the brutal legalism of Title VII of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on competition, tax and the approximation of laws; Article 50 TEU is anaemic. It is, essentially, a button triggering a countdown clock, which is on a comparable level of advancement to the 1980s floppy disk.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th July 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Little over a year has passed since the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015) came into force, making it a criminal offence to disclose private sexual material with the intent of causing fear and distress; legislating for the increase in so called ‘revenge porn’. A slow uptake in successful convictions for this offence has prompted the tabling of further amendments which would serve to widen the ambit of revenge porn criminality, to lower the bar for prosecutions and to encourage reporting of these crimes by granting anonymity to victims.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 4th July 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The number of victims of identity theft rose by 57% last year, figures from fraud prevention service Cifas suggest.’
BBC News, 5th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The Commons inquiry into prostitution has recommended legalising brothels and soliciting as quickly as possible. So, what happens now?’
The Guardian, 4th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Six men have been jailed for their part in an audacious plot to smuggle £1.6 billion of drugs into Britain using a fleet of fake ambulances.’
Daily Telegraph, 4th July 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A 24-year-old man has been found guilty of murdering a sex worker in Leeds before spending the money he stole from her on takeaways, drugs and cigarettes.’
The Guardian, 4th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Sir John Chilcot’s long overdue, and extremely lengthy report, has the unenviable task of drawing a line under the deeply unpopular Iraq War.’
BBC News, 5th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Half of police officers facing gross misconduct investigations in the past two years resigned or retired before their cases were heard, figures show.’
The Guardian, 4th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
A Local Authority v D and others [2016] EWHC 1438 (Fam)
‘The applicant local authority applied, pursuant to paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 3 to the Children Act 1989, for a six-month extension of a supervision order made in its favour under section 31 of the 1989 Act in respect of three children from the travelling community. The application was dated the day that the original order expired but was not issued until the following day.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Anwar (Umar) and others [2016] EWCA Crim 551
‘The victim was telephoned and offered a supply of cannabis, as a result of which he drove to the appointed place where he got into a silver car, joining the three occupants, to complete the purchase. The front passenger pointed a shotgun at his face while the driver brandished a knife. As the victim attempted to escape two men exited a white van nearby and attempted to take his car. The man with the shotgun fired two shots but the victim escaped. Six defendants stood trial on charges of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit robbery and possession of a firearm with intent to commit robbery. The Crown argued that this was a well-planned criminal enterprise as shown on the CCTV footage and by the frequent mobile phone calls between the defendants which showed that all the robbers had the necessary knowledge that a firearm was to be carried with the intention that it should be used during the course of the robbery with the required, if conditional, intention to kill. The trial judge ruled that, although there was a case for all defendants to answer in respect of the count of conspiracy to rob, there was no case in relation to attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent because there was no evidence to establish a prima facie case as to (a) any particular defendant being in the silver car; (b) any particular defendant holding the shotgun either in the silver car or when the shots were fired; or (c) crucially, any particular defendant being aware, by the time of travelling to the scene, that the shotgun was loaded, or that he was intending that it should be used if necessary specifically to kill. The Crown appealed against the judge’s ruling, pursuant to the provisions of section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.’
WLR Daily, 1st July 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In each case the requested person, a Polish national was convicted of serious offences in Poland and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In the first case the sentence was suspended but later activated because the requested person failed to adhere to the terms of the suspension. In the second case the requested person, with regard to two relevant sentences, had been (i) on release pending an unsuccessful appeal and (ii) on conditional early release which had been revoked because of breaches of the applicable conditions. In each case the requested person was required to surrender himself to the Polish authorities to serve the outstanding sentence but failed to do so. Various summonses and arrest warrants were issued in Poland which failed to achieve the apprehension of the requested persons and, upon discovering that the requested persons were in England, European arrest warrants were issued and served on the appropriate authorities.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Alice Gross, the 14-year-old believed to have died at the hands of Arnis Zalkalns, a Latvian builder, in 2014, was unlawfully killed in a sexually motivated attack, an inquest jury has found.’
The Guardian, 4th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Six men have been jailed for a total of 94 years after smuggling drugs from Holland to the UK in fake ambulances.’
BBC News, 4th July 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Criminal proceedings against Kossowski (Case C-486/14)
‘The accused fled from Germany to Poland after being accused of committing a criminal offence in Germany, and a criminal investigation was initiated against him in that state. The Polish authorities subsequently arrested the accused with a view to the enforcement of a term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced in Poland in a different case. Subsequently, the Polish authorities opened an investigation procedure against the accused, accusing him of an offence based on his actions in Germany but decided eventually to terminate the criminal proceedings for lack of sufficient evidence. The Higher Regional Court, Hamburg, hearing an appeal brought by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office against that decision, took the view that under the German law, the evidence against the accused was sufficient to justify the opening of trial proceedings before the Regional Court, Hamburg, and the acceptance of the indictment for the purposes of those proceedings, unless that was barred by the principle of ne bis in idem (protection from multiple prosecutions in different member states) laid down in article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (1995) (OJ 2000 L239, p 19) (the “CISA”) and article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Accordingly, the Hamburg court referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of those provisions.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In 2006 the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to obtain property by deception. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. In confiscation proceedings his criminal benefit was assessed at over £800,000 but, as he had no available assets, a confiscation order was made in the nominal sum of £1. Subsequently, the defendant having bought a house, the prosecution applied under section 22 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 for reconsideration of the available amount. In July 2015 the amount of the confiscation order was varied from £1 to £108,010, the value of the defendant’s equity in the house, with five years’ imprisonment to be served in default of payment. The defendant made a late application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence. The application was dismissed except that it was adjourned as to two of the proposed grounds of appeal, namely (i) that the default sentence was excessive because, at the time of the offence, the maximum period of imprisonment in default of payment of a confiscation order in relation to a sum between £100,00 and £250,000 was three years and the judge had therefore been wrong to have regard to the increased maximum period provided for in section 10 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which, by regulation 3(g) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (Commencement No 1) Regulations 2015 came into force on 1 June 2015; (ii) that the term imposed was manifestly excessive.’
WLR Daily, 30th June 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘In litigation in Romania concerning the care and custody of a 10 year-old child born to Romanian parents who had lived most of his life with his mother in England, the Bucharest Court of Appeal awarded custody of the child to his father. The father obtained an order in the High Court for recognition and registration of that decision under article 21(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The mother appealed to a High Court judge pursuant to article 33 of the Regulation. The judge, allowing the appeal, refused recognition of the Romanian court order under article 23(b) on the ground that the order had been made without the child having been given an opportunity to be heard. The father, having unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, obtained leave for a further appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon the mother challenging the father’s right to a further appeal, the Supreme Court convened a preliminary hearing to determine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 29th June 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024