‘The High Court has reversed a costs order on appeal after a successful defendant had initially been forced to pay most of the losing claimant’s costs.’
Law Society's Gazette, 1st August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘”Paedophile hunters” do not violate the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has ruled while dismissing a convict’s appeal.
Mark Sutherland was convicted after communicating with a member of an activist group, who he believed to be a 13-year-old boy. He appealed his conviction, arguing that his right to a private life and correspondence, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Delivering the Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday, Lord Sales said the appeal had been “unanimously dismissed”.’
The Independent, 15th July 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Imagine that you are a juror in a trial in which the chief witness for the prosecution gives evidence about the alleged crime which is completely at odds with the evidence given by the accused. One of them is either very badly mistaken or lying. On what basis will you decide which one of them is telling the truth? And how sure can you be in your conclusion?’
OUP Blog, 7th July 2020
Source: blog.oup.com
‘A solicitor who amended a client’s form of authority when he could not contact her and then sent it to her former employer – not knowing she had died – has been struck off for dishonesty.’
Legal Futures, 6th July 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A “devious” litigant produced an inaccurate transcript of an earlier judgment in the latest of a series of “forgeries” of court documents, a High Court judge has found.’
Litigation Futures, 29th June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal affirmed in the case of R v Barton that the test for dishonesty to be used in criminal proceedings is that set out in obiter dicta by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos UK (t/a Cockfords Club), expressly overruling the two-stage test set out in R v Ghosh. Modifying (albeit to a limited extent) the principle of stare decisis, the court held that, in limited circumstances, where the Supreme Court directs, obiter dicta, that an otherwise binding decision of the Court of Appeal should no longer be followed and proposes an alternative test that it says must be adopted, the Court of Appeal is bound to follow that direction. The test in Ivey ensures dishonesty is objectively assessed by reference to society’s standards, rather than the defendant’s own understanding of what is dishonest. This resolves the problematic second limb of the Ghosh test.’
5SAH, 18th May 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘A convicted paedophile who was snared by a vigilante group is to have his case examined at the UK Supreme Court.’
BBC News, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘There has been something of an explosion in the number of sexual offences cases coming to the Crown Court where there is no actual victim. Offenders are caught by so-called paedophile hunters or police officers going online and posing as children.’
Broadway House Chambers, 11th May 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘In this landmark decision, a five – judge constitution of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), headed by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, clarified that the test for dishonesty in criminal law is that set out by Lord Hughes in the Supreme Court authority of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67; [2018] AC 391. This test is to be preferred to the test of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053.’
Park Square Barristers, 30th April 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘The decision in Barton & Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575 brings an end to the uncertainty surrounding the test for dishonesty, and the application of the test proposed by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67. This article will look at the departure from Ghosh, the application of the Ivey test notwithstanding its obiter status.’
Broadway House Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘In Barton and Booth v R [2020] EWCA Crim 575, the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal considered the correct approach to be taken to dishonesty as it applies to the criminal law. In doing so, the Court confirmed that the test for dishonesty articulated in the Supreme Court decision of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Crockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67 displaced the test for dishonesty that had been laid down in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 and which had applied in the criminal courts for 35 years.’
Exchange Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘Charles and Diana Ingram will ask the court of appeal to overturn their convictions for cheating on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? – arguing that new audio analysis casts serious doubt on the evidence used to prosecute them.’
The Guardian, 15th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘We have all experienced cases, especially when representing a young mother who has been placed with the child, often a first child and a baby, in a mother and baby foster placement and that placement has broken down for a variety of different reasons.’
Becket Chambers, 9th April 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘Ms Durdana was a tenant of LCH. She faced possession proceedings under ground 17 Sch 2 Housing Act 1988 – that the landlord was induced to grant the tenancy by a false statement made knowingly or recklessly by the tenant or someone acting at the tenant’s instigation.’
Nearly Legal, 6th April 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A junior solicitor at the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) external advisers Capsticks lied about losing documents she was working on while acting for the regulator in a data protection case.’
Legal Futures, 6th April 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘A solicitor who acted as head of legal and a “puppet director” for a variety of companies involved in sham £16m property schemes has been struck off.’
Legal Futures, 1st April 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2020