“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.”
BBC News, 22nd April 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Report shows most criticism of judgments from European court of human rights is fact-specific.”
The Guardian, 20th April 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Newell [2012] EWCA Crim 650; [2012] WLR (D) 105
“A statement made on a plea and case management hearing form by the defendant’s counsel, although admissible in principle as a matter of law, should not, in the exercise of the court’s discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘PACE’), be admitted in evidence against the defendant at trial, provided that the case had been conducted in accordance with the letter and the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011.”
WLR Daily, 30th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Chinn [2012] EWCA 501; [2012] WLR (D) 82
“Where a witness’s oral evidence in chief indicated that he had earlier made a witness statement and to the best of his belief he had made the statement concerned and that the statement stated the truth, and the statement identified or described a person, object or place connected with an alleged offence or other relevant event, those parts of the witness statement would be admissible under section 120(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, other parts of the witness statement, which went beyond identification or description of the person object or place, would not be admissible under section 120(4) and (5).”
WLR Daily, 15th March 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Much of the criticism directed toward the European Court of Human Rights over the last year or so, in this country at least, has been that it is too ready to overrule decisions made by the competent United Kingdom national authorities. It is said that British courts have already addressed the relevant human rights arguments under the Human Rights Act, so it is quite wrong that Strasbourg should now ‘overrule’ them.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th March 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The European Court of Human Rights has rejected as ‘inadmissible’ Times Newspaper’s challenge to its 2009 conviction for contempt of court. The decision, which was made by six judges, is a good example of an early stage ‘strike-out’ by the Court which is nonetheless a substantial, reasoned decision (see our posts on the ‘UK loses 3 out of 4 cases at the court’ controversy).”
UK Human Rights Blog, 8th February 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Marie-Bénédicte Dembour calls them ‘forgotten cases’. As Adam Wagner demonstrated in a blog post of last week, Eurosceptic newspapers have a particular interest in overlooking the European Court of Human Right’s decisions of inadmissibility, seeking to buttress claims that the Court is wildly interventionist, imposing alien ‘European’ logics on Britain with gleeful abandon.”
UK Human Rights Blog,
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Tido v The Queen [2011] UKPC 16; [2011] WLR (D) 199
“A dock identification of a defendant was not inadmissible evidence per se. Nor was the admission of such evidence to be regarded as permissible in only the most exceptional circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 15th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.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.
“The use of intercept evidence in criminal trials is not yet ‘legally or practically viable’, the independent reviewer of terror laws has said.”
BBC News, 10th December 2009
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Intercept evidence should not be allowed into British terror trials, the government’s terrorism reviewer said today.”
The Guardian, 24th November 2009
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
R v Downer [2009] EWCA Crim 1361; [2009] WLR (D) 233
“The offence of aggravated burglary under s 10 (1) of the Theft Act 1968 was not to be regarded as an indivisible offence and, in order to find out what constituted a burglary, it was essential to have regard to the two types of burglary described in (a) and (b) of s 9(1) of the Act.”
WLR Daily, 7th 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.
“In relation to criminal proceedings there was no power, whether under the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008 or otherwise, to admit statements of anonymous witnesses made otherwise than in oral evidence in the proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 16th December 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.
Court of Appeal
“When the court was considering the admissibility of arguably wrongfully obtained fresh evidence it might consider factors going beyond the classical test.”
The Times, 27th August 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 Freeman; R v Crawford [2008] EWCA Crim 1863; [2008] WLR (D) 287
“Some care was required in directing a jury when approaching the cross-admissibility of bad character evidence.”
WLR Daily, 11th August 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.
Lifely v Lifely [2008] EWCA Civ 904; [2008] WLR (D) 280
“Where fresh evidence had arguably been wrongfully obtained considerations beyond the classical requirements under the Ladd v Marshall test might be appropriate when the court was considering whether such evidence should be admitted.”
WLR Daily, 1st August 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.
© Inner Temple Library 2024