“The government’s failure to provide an ‘adequate’ lawyer to represent a British woman sentenced to death in Indonesia for drug smuggling is a breach of her rights, the high court has been told.”
The Guardian, 31st January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The mother of a four-month-old boy who died when a television fell on his head has been jailed.”
BBC News, 31st January 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Was challenging the decision for prisoners having the right to vote a step too far?”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 31st January 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Naomi Campbell has received an apology and ‘substantial’ libel damages from the Daily Telegraph over an article that wrongly claimed she organised an elephant polo tournament in India.”
The Guardian, 31st January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Applications are invited for up to seven temporary posts, assisting the Justices of the Supreme Court (who also sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) by carrying out research in connection with appeals and summarising applications for permission to appeal.
You must be a solicitor, barrister or advocate qualified in one of the UK jurisdictions, having completed a training contract or pupillage by the start of the appointment. You will normally be intending to pursue a career in advocacy or have returned to university to carry out postgraduate research with a view to returning to a career in advocacy. You must demonstrate a high intellectual and analytical ability, incisiveness and the ability to work well under pressure. Excellent IT and written skills are also essential.
Salary will be £35,188 per annum plus an annual leave entitlement of 23.5 days to be taken outside of term time.
Appointments are full-time and candidates must be able to start on Monday 9 September 2013 and finish on Thursday 31 July 2014.
For further details and an application form visit the Hays recruitment website or write to:
Hays Legal
107 Cheapside
London
EC2V 6DN
Telephone: 020 3465 0141.
Completed application forms must be returned by midnight on Thursday 28 March 2013.
Interviews are likely to be held week commencing 20th May 2013.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is an equal opportunities employer.
“In October 2009, Bank Mellat, an Iranian bank, was effectively excluded from the UK financial market by an Order made by the Treasury, on the basis that it had or might provide banking services to those involved in Iran’s nuclear effort. The Bank challenged the Order, and the challenge failed in the Court of Appeal, albeit with a dissent from Elias LJ: see Rosalind English’s post and read judgment. The Bank’s appeal to the Supreme Court is due to be heard in March 2013; it raises some fascinating issues about common law unfairness, Article 6, and the right to property under A1P1 , given that the Bank was not told of the intention to make the Order prior to its making.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court
B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 4 (30 January 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Dlugosz, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 2 (30 January 2013)
Kenny v R. [2013] EWCA Crim 1 (30 January 2013)
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Ibrahim v London Borough of Wandsworth [2013] EWCA Civ 20 (30 January 2013)
FHR European Ventures LLP & Ors v Mankarious & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 17 (29 January 2013)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Isis Investments Ltd v Oscatello Investments Ltd & Ors [2013] EWHC 7 (Ch) (30 January 2013)
Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd & Ors v Valero Energy Ltd [2013] EWHC 98 (Ch) (30 January 2013)
MF Global UK Ltd, Re [2013] EWHC 92 (Ch) (29 January 2013)
High Court (Administrative Court)
Polish Judicial Authority v Wolkowicz [2013] EWHC 102 (Admin) (30 January 2013)
Cakani v Secretary of State for Home Department [2013] EWHC 16 (Admin) (31 January 2013)
High Court (Family Division)
AI v MT [2013] EWHC 100 (Fam) (30 January 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker Ltd (t/a Sanofi) [2013] EWHC 87 (TCC) (29 January 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
“The Court of Appeal has ruled that the statutory requirement that criminal convictions and cautions must be disclosed in an enhanced criminal record check (‘ECRC’) in the context of particular types of employment interfered with the appellants’ right to respect for private life under Article 8.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“TV cameras will be allowed into the court of appeal for the first time from October and senior judges will be offered training before appearing on camera, the lord chief justice has revealed.”
The Guardian, 30th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“UK laws that set out a ‘blanket’ requirement that job applicants disclose to employers all of the ‘recordable’ criminal convictions and police warnings they have been given are incompatible with individuals’ right to privacy, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 31st January 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The statutory regime requiring the blanket disclosure of all convictions and cautions relating to recordable offences against an individual was disproportionate to (i) the general aim of protecting employers and, in particular, children and vulnerable adults who were in their care, and (ii) the particular aim of enabling employers to make an assessment as to whether the individual was suitable for a particular kind of work.”
WLR Daily, 29th Janaury 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
O’Cathail v Transport for London [2013] EWCA Civ 21; [2013] WLR (D) 31
“An employment tribunal’s decision to refuse a claimant’s application to adjourn a hearing could not be set aside by the Employment Appeal Tribunal unless the tribunal had erred in law.”
WLR Daily, 29th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The hindsight principle was not applicable to the determination of claims to client money for the purposes of a distribution under Chapter 7A of the Client Assets Sourcebook (‘CASS 7A’) issued by the Financial Services Authority in accordance with its powers under Part X of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”
WLR Daily, 29th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] UKSC 4; [2013] WLR (D) 29
“Where a person held by a civil court or tribunal to be in contempt of court appealed against a sentence of imprisonment imposed for the contempt and the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) found that the lower court’s factual findings had been flawed but that nevertheless, on the basis of the true facts, there had still been contempt requiring imprisonment, it could decide for itself what the appropriate sentence should be by asking whether the lower court’s sentence had been manifestly excessive, provided that the lower court’s decision had not been influenced by its flawed findings of fact.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Radu (Case C-396/11); [2013] WLR (D) 28
“According to the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, the executing judicial authorities of a member state could not avoid their duty pursuant to article 1(2) of the Framework Decision to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, on the ground that the requested person had not been heard in the issuing member state before that arrest warrant was issued.”
WLR Daily, 29th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Removing funding for a service that helps litigants in person on the day wide-ranging legal aid cuts take effect will create ‘absolute disarray’ in the courts, a former head of the family division has warned.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 30th January 2013
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
“The government’s Justice and Security Bill has this week entered a new phase of debate in the House of Commons as it is considered in detail by a 19-member Public Bill Committee over the next month. The critics of this Bill – and there are many – argue that it will make ‘secret justice’ a standard part of our legal process. The latest set of amendments proposed by the government were revealed yesterday and within them lies a crucial and unjustifiable secrecy provision. The significance of the amendments becomes apparent when one looks at how the Bill has progressed so far.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th Janaury 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Constitutional reforms that have taken effect over the past seven years ‘may be eroding something rather important’, the lord chief justice of England and Wales told peers on Wednesday.”
The Guardian, 30th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2026