‘The Supreme Court has unanimously declared that government rules regarding the disclosure of spent convictions are unlawful and incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th June 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The issue of just how open our justice system should be is an issue which is or should be of fundamental concern to all practising lawyers. If, as Jeremy Bentham once stated ‘publicity is the very soul of justice’ (cited by Lord Shaw in the leading case of Scott v Scott [1913] AC 477), then an open justice system is the corporeal expression of that soul. However, we now live in times where open justice is increasingly under threat. Indeed, as last week’s headlines reminded us all, matters have now got to a stage where some judges at least have been prepared to allow, not merely the deployment of a limited closed procedure to deal with certain aspects of a case, but a completely secret trial. It no doubt came as a relief to many that the Court of Appeal was not prepared to sanction such a comprehensive departure from the open justice principle: Guardian News v AB CD. However, the mere fact that the judiciary was prepared to contemplate such a procedure shows how far we have come since the days of Scott v Scott.’
Panopticon, 18th June 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘A man serving life in prison for murdering his ex-girlfriend has lost his fight to have forensic exhibits retested.’
BBC News, 18th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th June 2014
Supreme Court, 18th June 2014
‘A salesman serving life in prison for murdering his former girlfriend will today find out the result of his Supreme Court fight to have key forensic exhibits retested.’
The Independent, 18th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court is today due to rule whether job applicants should be forced to disclose all convictions to certain potential employers.’
The Independent, 18th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has published its decision in Guardian News Media v AB and CD. It is not a judgment, the Court says. Judgments – plural – will be given “in due course.” Still, the 24 paragraph decision contains the order and explanation of the order, and gives an indication of some of the reasons that will follow.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th June 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Given the paucity of case law, it is notoriously difficult to estimate likely awards of compensation under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for breaches of that Act. It is also very difficult to assess any trends in compensation awards over time.’
Panopticon, 13th June 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Since Tuesday, running a personal website has become a privacy minefield for people using .uk domain names. A recent rule change by Nominet, the company which manages the .uk registry, means that domain name owners whose home addresses were previously kept private may now be publicly visible in online searches. People setting up domain names through Nominet must now also show their full legal personal or business name on the public registration database.’
The Guardian, 11th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Crown Prosecution Service has been told it must reveal details about its decision not to prosecute the former Rochdale MP Cyril Smith for alleged offences against children.’
BBC News, 9th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The anniversary of the implementation of the Jackson reforms looms. Has all the fear and dread it engendered at the time been justified? Views will vary, whether because of temperament or because of preference, but in our view, for what it’s worth, the answer is “yes”. In the sphere of relief from sanctions at least, and in the kind of costs budgeting that we most often face, many of the concerns warned of in advance have come to pass. The by now well-know case of Andrew Mitchell has illustrated the draconian approach being taken by the courts to relief from sanctions, with the support of what appears to be a hand-picked Court of Appeal. The methodology of county courts in dealing with costs budgeting and CCMCs varies widely, making it difficult to predict or advise on procedural issues in the run up to trials and hearings.’
Full story (PDF)
Falcon Chambers, 25th March 2014
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘A council has won an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal over its refusal to meet a freedom of information request for the disclosure of legal advice given to a consultant conducting an investigation on the authority’s behalf.’
Local Government Lawyer, 3rd June 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The margin of discretion afforded HM Revenue and Customs Commissioners in considering whether to disclose to a third party information about its export control functions under section 18(2)(a) and (d) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 could not be uniformly categorised and would vary according to the facts. It might be, in some circumstances, materially or even very substantially circumscribed but in other cases it might be relatively broad and there was no convincing wisdom in seeking to categorise the margin in quantitative terms that were wide, middling or narrow.’
WLR Daily, 12th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Clyde & Co LLP and another (Respondents) v Bates van Winklehof (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 32 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 21st May 2014
‘Kirstie Gibson considers allegations of non-disclosure, misconduct & adverse inferences.’
New Law Journal, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The family of a teenage soldier who died after being shot twice in the head at the Deepcut barracks have been denied access to a cache of files they believe could shed light on his death, the Guardian can reveal.’
The Guardian, 26th May 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Following the Supreme Court’s lengthy, slightly unexpected, and difficult to grasp judgment in Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20 (on which I have been quiet because of my involvement, but see Tom Cross’s blogpost here) there has been room for quite a large amount of debate as to how far it goes. Was the majority only suggesting access to the Charity Commission’s information under the common law principle of open justice applied because of the particular statutory regime and/or the nature of the statutory inquiry involved? Or was the principle rather more wide-ranging?’
Panopticon, 20th May 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025