R v Brown (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) – Supreme Court
R v Brown (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) [2013] UKSC 43 | UKSC 2011/0233 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 26th June 2013
Category: burden of proof
Suspected Jamaican rapist banned from UK for a decade as police employ new tactic – The Independent
“A suspected Jamaican sex-offender charged five times but never convicted for allegedly raping vulnerable women has been banned from Britain for a decade in a controversial new police tactic to target foreign criminals.”
The Independent, 7th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Asociaţia ACCEPT v Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminǎrii – WLR Daily
“Homophobic statements made by a person perceived as playing a leading role in a football club but who did not have legal capacity to bind it in recruitment matters were capable of constituting ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been … discrimination’ pursuant to articles 2(2) and 10(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L303, p16).”
WLR Daily, 25th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Has The Golden Thread Finally Been Snapped? – Zenith Chambers
“‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception
No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’
Per Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 – emphasis added.
There cannot be an English lawyer who is unaware of this paragraph in Viscount Sankey’s judgment in Woolmington. Many non-lawyers who have chanced to read the Rumpole stories will also be as aware of, if not as attached to, it.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 19th March 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
Silence is not necessarily golden: the consequences of failing to adduce evidence in rebuttal in civil trials – Zenith Chambers
“Gordon Exall considers the practical issues that arise from the principle that a court can draw adverse inferences from a party’s failure to adduce evidence on an issue.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 12th February 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others – WLR Daily
Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 15; [2013] WLR (D) 25
“There was no rule of law that if the only other possible causes of an event were very much less likely than one suggested means of causation, that became the probable cause; the court had to be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred was stronger than the case for not so believing.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
How UK libel laws undermined Sunday Times in Lance Armstrong case – The Guardian
“The legal battle with disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong which cost the Sunday Times almost £1m after it suggested he took banned substances shows how difficult it is to pursue investigations under British libel laws, with the burden of proof heavily stacked against publishers, according to those who worked on the original stories.”
The Guardian, 22nd January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Sadighpour – WLR Daily
Regina v Sadighpour [2012] EWCA Crim 2669; [2013] WLR (D) 4
“Section 31(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 did not reiterate a requirement to satisfy an evidential burden, initially imposed by section 31(1) on a defendant in relation to refugee status, even when the Secretary of State had refused an asylum claim, and was apt to cover a situation where there had already been due consideration of the defendant’s claim to refugee status on the merits.”
WLR Daily, 11th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Tying ourselves into (Gordian) knots? – Thirty Nine Essex Street
“This paper seeks to take a step back from the intricacies of the DOLS regime that we have learned to know and, at best (I sense) tolerate since it was introduced in April 2009. Rather, it seeks to re examine the fundamental question of what constitutes a deprivation of liberty for purposes of Article 5(1) ECHR in the context of those without capacity to determine their own residence and care/treatment arrangements.”
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, November 2012
Source: www.39essex.com
Ben Butler’s case reminds us the justice system is not infallible – The Guardian
“Ben Butler, found to have shaken his seven week old baby in both care proceedings and criminal proceedings in 2008, has finally been declared an innocent man. Ben had taken his daughter Ellie to hospital after she had collapsed with breathing problems, but suspicion quickly fell on him when doctors believed the symptoms she displayed were conclusive evidence of shaking. Five years on, and the discovery of medical evidence that no one had previously seen, a high court judge has exonerated Ben of any wrongdoing.”
The Guardian, 18th October 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Hewage v Grampian Health Board – WLR Daily
Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37; [2012] WLR (D) 235
“In considering a claim for discrimination in the employment tribunal, the statutory burden of proof provisions only required careful attention where there was room for doubt as to the facts necessary to establish discrimination.”
WLR Daily, 25th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester (Public Concern at Work intervening) – WLR Daily
“A worker had been subjected to a detriment “on the ground that” he had made a protected disclosure, for the purposes of section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, if the protected disclosure was a material factor in the employer’s decision to subject the employee to a detrimental act.”
WLR Daily, 25th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ineos Healthcare Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, other party) – WLR Daily
“In opposition proceedings against registration of a trade mark pursuant to article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the opposing party was not obliged to adduce evidence in support of the opposition. Whilst in relation to proceedings relating to relative grounds for refusal the Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) could take into account facts which were likely to be known by anyone or which might be learned from generally accessible sources, it was not, however, entitled to exceed the conditions governing examination set out in article 74 of Regulation 40/94.”
WLR Daily, 23rd 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.
Paponette and others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago – WLR Daily
Paponette and others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2010] UKPC 32; [2010] WLR (D) 323
“A court could not infer from the bare fact that a public body had acted in breach of a legitimate expectation that it must have done so to further some overriding public interest.”
WLR Daily, 13th December 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 Webster – WLR Daily
Regina v Webster [2010] EWCA Crim 2819; [2010] WLR (D) 216
“The reverse onus of proof which s 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916 effected on a prosecution for an offence contrary to s 1(2) of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, placing on the defendant the legal burden of disproving guilt was no longer necessary and the means of imposition were unreasonable and disproportionate, and so it unjustifiably interfered with the presumption of innocence provided by art 6(2) of he Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It should therefore be read down pursuant to s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to impose a merely evidential burden on the defendant.”
WLR Daily, 6th December 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.
EAT upholds victimisation claim – Law Society’s Gazette
“A firm that ‘gratuitously’ mentioned a solicitor’s previous discrimination claim against it when providing an employment reference to another firm has lost an appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 17th June 2010
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
R v Charles – WLR Daily
R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570; [2009] WLR (D) 265
“Where a person was charged with an offence under s 1(10) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 of doing something which he was prohibited from doing by an anti-social behaviour order without reasonable excuse, the legal burden of proving that the defendant acted without reasonable excuse lay on the prosecution.”
WLR Daily, 30th 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.
Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust – Times Law Reports
Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust
Court of Appeal
“Where a hospital employee was injured using a mechanical hoist to move a patient, the burden was on the employer to prove that it had taken appropriate steps to reduce any risk to the lowest reasonably practicable level.”
The Times, 3rd February 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.
Egan v Central Manchester and Manchester Children’s University Hospitals NHS Trust – WLR Daily
“Once an employee had shown that a manual handling operation at work carried some risk of injury, for the purposes of reg 4(1)(b) of the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, the burden of proof was on the employer to prove that it had taken appropriate steps to reduce the risk to the lowest level reasonably practicable, under reg 4(1)(b)(ii).”
WLR Daily, 18th 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.
Regina v Chargot and Others – Times Law Reports
House of Lords
“In criminal proceedings against an employer after an accident ot work, it was sufficient for the prosecution to prove merely a risk of injury arising from a state of affairs at work, without identifying and proving specific breaches of duty by the employer. Once that was done, a prima facie case of breach was established. The onus then passed to the employer to make good the defence of reasonable practicability.”
The Times, 16th December 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
