The 4 Principles Applicable to Telephone Disclosure by Giles Bridge – Broadway House Chambers

‘You are the witness to or the victim of a crime. The police officer says that they need you to hand over your mobile phone. The officer says it will be examined and all of the contents may be downloaded. The officer cannot say when you will get your phone back. There is a long backlog of phones waiting to be downloaded, it could be a couple of months. It’s your phone, you really rely upon it. Like most people, your average screen time has rocketed during lockdown. There is so much detailed and very personal information on that phone. You ask the officer, ‘Do you really need to take my phone?’ You are very reluctant to hand it over. The officer says, if you do not hand it over the case probably will not go any further. Discussions like this take place every day across the United Kingdom.’

Full Story

Broadway House Chambers, 29th June 2020

Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk

High Court rules on preliminary issues in challenge relating to alleged UK involvement in torture – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In R (Reprieve & Ors) v Prime Minister [2020] EWHC 1695 (Admin), the High Court made a preliminary ruling that Article 6(1) of the ECHR does not apply to the forthcoming judicial review of the Government’s decision not to establish a public inquiry into allegations that the UK intelligence services were involved in the torture, mistreatment and rendition of detainees in the aftermath of 9/11. It was further held that the claimants are not entitled to the level of disclosure of open material outlined in SSHD v AF (No 3) [2009].’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 9th July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Dunn v FCO — the opening skirmishes – UK Human Rights Blog

‘In R (Dunn) v The Foreign Secretary and the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [2020] EWHC 1620 (Admin) the Divisional Court dismissed two applications made in anticipation of the forthcoming rolled up judicial review arising out of the death of Harry Dunn.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 6th July 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Amber Heard can be in court for Johnny Depp’s evidence, high court rules – The Guardian

‘Johnny Depp has failed to stop his ex-wife Amber Heard from watching him give evidence in a libel case over allegations of domestic abuse.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 4th July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

UK judge rules against Johnny Depp over ‘drugs texts’ in libel case – The Guardian

Posted June 30th, 2020 in defamation, disclosure, domestic violence, drug abuse, evidence, news by sally

‘Johnny Depp has breached an order in a libel case by failing to disclose texts that apparently show him trying to obtain drugs, the high court has ruled.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Obligations in relation to electronic records and devices: fresh guidance from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) – Park Square Barristers

‘Two otherwise unrelated cases were listed together to provide the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), headed by the Vice – President Lord Justice Fulford, with an opportunity to consider various issues relating to the retention, inspection, copying, disclosure and deletion of the electronic records held by prosecution witnesses.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 26th June 2020

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Temporary Exclusion Orders and the Right to a Fair Hearing in the UK – Oxford Human Rights Hub

Posted June 17th, 2020 in closed material, disclosure, human rights, judicial review, news, terrorism by sally

‘In QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020], the UK High Court reached a landmark preliminary decision that ECHR Article 6 applies to the judicial review of obligations imposed under a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO). The Court further held that the claimant is entitled to the level of disclosure outlined in SSHD v AF (No 3) [2009]. This judgement sets a welcome precedent for applying Article 6 to closed material proceedings under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. It is also consistent with the procedural protections applied to the former regime for control orders, now succeeded by TPIM notices. The reasons given for applying the AF (No 3) standard of disclosure, however, demonstrate the persistence of a limited and discretionary approach to disclosure obligations in national security litigation.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 4th June 2020

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

‘Unrealistic’ appeals system fails prisoners who have been victims of abuse – report – The Guardian

‘One month window to challenge convictions in England and Wales means women who have experienced trauma are unfairly criminalised, campaigners say.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 17th June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Jason Varuhas: Evidence, Facts and the Changing Nature of Judicial Review – UK Constitutional Law Association

Posted June 16th, 2020 in disclosure, evidence, human rights, judicial review, news by sally

‘ It is received wisdom, oft-repeated in judgments and textbooks alike, that the judicial review procedure is not an apt forum for the testing of evidence and resolution of disputed questions of fact. For example, it is commonly stated that disclosure and oral evidence will only be ordered rarely, while one would be lucky to find ‘expert evidence’ mentioned in an administrative law text. In contrast disclosure, oral evidence and expert evidence are par for the course in ‘ordinary’ civil proceedings.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th June 2020

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Commercial Court dislikes pre-action disclosure in prof neg claims: even in mega-auditor’s negligence action – Hailsham Chambers

‘In Carillion v KPMG, the liquidators of this once substantial company sought pre-action disclosure from its former auditors. They intend to bring professional negligence proceedings for not detecting that the financial statements were unreliable. The Commercial Court refused the application. One might think that given auditors’ negligence claims in large part turn on professional judgment as to the audit procedures performed, the evidence obtained and the conclusions drawn, clear sight of the materials produced and relied on by the auditors would enable better focussed pleadings. Nonetheless the Commercial Court refused the application (which had admittedly spun into a substantial hearing with apparently more than £500,000 costs on each side). It pointed out that generally such applications were unlikely to succeed in Commercial Court cases and on the facts was not appropriate. The Judge seems to have been most impressed by the fact that Carillion had been able to articulate a detailed case in negligence already, rendering pre-action disclosure perhaps redundant and likely to be duplicated when it came to conventional disclosure.’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, June 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Postmasters were prosecuted using unreliable evidence – BBC News

‘The Post Office prosecuted postmasters over missing money despite having evidence its own computer system could be to blame.’

Full Story

BBC News, 8th June 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Jeremy Bamber refused access to documents on Essex family murders – The Guardian

‘Jeremy Bamber, who is serving a whole life sentence for one of Britain’s most notorious multiple murders, has been refused access to documents that he believes could help clear his name.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 5th June 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Using documents for a collateral purpose and in separate proceedings – how likely are the courts to approve your application? – St Ives Chambers

Posted June 5th, 2020 in chambers articles, civil procedure rules, disclosure, documents, news by sally

‘There will certainly be occasions where the use of documents disclosed in separate proceedings are useful to your case and it is desirable either to disclose these in the present case or to obtain advice on collateral claims, but which applications are practically viable?’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, May 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

Professional Regulation – Case Comment: Caroline Reilly V Teaching Regulation Agency and Secretary of State for Education (2020) EWHC 1188 (Admin) – Park Square Barristers

‘The appellant was the head teacher of a primary school in the West Midlands. She was dismissed from her post in July 2011 following disciplinary proceedings which arose in consequence of her failure to disclose the fact of her personal relationship with a man who had been convicted of offences involving the making and possessing of indecent images of children.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 15th May 2020

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk

Can you sack your opponent’s solicitor? You can try… Glencairn IP Holdings Ltd v Product Specialities Inc (t/a ‘Final Touch’) [2020] EWCA Civ 609 – Hailsham Chambers

Posted May 26th, 2020 in chambers articles, confidentiality, disclosure, law firms, news, solicitors by sally

‘It is well established that a litigant may restrain his former solicitors from acting for his opponent where: (i) those former solicitors are in possession of relevant, adverse confidential information and (ii) there is even a slight risk of that information being disclosed (Bolkiah v KPMG).1 But the issue in Glencairn, was whether a litigant could prevent solicitors from acting for his current opponent because that firm had acted for a former opponent in similar litigation which was settled on confidential terms. Did the solicitors’ knowledge of the applicant’s confidential settlement strategy in similar litigation (against a different party) give an unfair advantage which meant the solicitors should be prohibited from acting?’

Full Story

Hailsham Chambers, 13th May 2020

Source: www.hailshamchambers.com

Disclosure pilot “to be extended for another year” – Litigation Futures

Posted May 21st, 2020 in disclosure, news, pilot schemes by sally

‘The disclosure pilot in the Business and Property Courts is likely to be extended until the end of 2021, it has emerged.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 19th May 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Guildford pub bombings inquest can access closed files – BBC News

Posted May 21st, 2020 in disclosure, documents, explosives, inquests, news, terrorism, witnesses by sally

‘The resumed inquest into the Guildford pub bombs in 1974 will have access to more than 700 classified files, a pre-inquest review (PIR) has been told.’

Full Story

BBC News, 20th May 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

ZXC v Bloomberg: privacy expectations about criminal investigations – Panopticon

‘The Court of Appeal has today given judgment in the long-running ZXC v Bloomberg litigation ([2020] EWCA Civ 611). The key points:

1. In general, a person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy about the fact that/details of their being subject to a police investigation, up to the point of charge.
2. Reporting about alleged conduct is different from reporting about a criminal investigation into that conduct.’

Full Story

Panopticon, 15th May 2020

Source: panopticonblog.com

Government faces legal action over refusal to publish Sage minutes – The Guardian

‘A millionaire businessman is launching legal action against the government after it refused to disclose minutes of the Sage meetings that informed its decision to impose the coronavirus lockdown.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 16th May 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Making defendants state nationality is ‘racialising’ UK courts – report – The Guardian

‘The impartiality of the criminal justice system is being undermined by the requirement that defendants declare their nationality at the start of proceedings, a report into the legislation has said.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 18th May 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com