Regina v Mehmedov [2014] EWCA Crim 1523; [2014] WLR (D) 325
‘A certificate of a conviction in a member state of the European Union was admissible in evidence under section 73(1) of the Police and Criminal Act 1984 even where the conviction preceded the accession of the member state concerned to the European Union.’
WLR Daily, 18th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Britain’s biggest force faces a large compensation claim as a tribunal rules Carol Howard was treated unfairly because of her sex and race.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary: [2014] UKSC 37; [2014] WLR (D) 265
‘Where, after a defendant’s trial had ended in his conviction, material came to light which might cast doubt on the safety of the conviction, the prosecutors’ duty of disclosure required him to disclose that material to the defendant, unless there were good reason not to do so, and, where there was a real prospect that further inquiry might reveal such material, to make that inquiry. There was, however, no indefinitely continuing duty on police or prosecutors to respond to whatever inquiries the defendant might make for access to case materials to allow re-investigation.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘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
‘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
‘They are the two words the jury in the phone hacking trial may have waited months to hear. At 3.15pm in court 12 of the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Saunders said: “And finally.”’
The Independent, 12th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘An undercover Panorama investigation has found some paid expert witnesses prepared to provide helpful court reports despite a client’s confession.’
BBC News, 9th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A leaked diplomatic cable published on the internet by a third party did not violate the archive and documents of the diplomatic mission which sent the cable since it had already been disclosed to the world by a third party. On that narrow ground it was admissible as evidence in court. However, even if the evidence in question had been admitted, it would not have led to a different decision and therefore was not a ground for allowing the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A tribunal conducting asylum proceedings could admit, as expert evidence, a report by an organisation based on a telephone interview with an asylum claimant in which its analysts commented on the likelihood of that person originating from his claimed place of origin, based on the person’s dialect and answers to questions about the area in question, even though the report was in the name of the organisation rather than an individual and those contributing to it were identified only by serial numbers. However it was necessary for the tribunal in each particular case to be satisfied that the anonymity was necessary, with safeguards for the claimant in place, and that the authors of the report had demonstrated that they had relevant expertise for each matter on which they had commented.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) v MN and KY (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 30 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 21st May 2014
‘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
‘A man whose wife told him to “go die in battlefield” in a text message as he went off to fight in Syria has become the first person in the UK to be convicted of terrorist offences in connection with the conflict.’
Daily Telegraph, 20th May 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Boundary disputes are rarely cost effective and the courts often make orders that make them disproportionately costly for the winner as well as the loser. Two recent cases demonstrate that risk and the importance of fully exploring and considering the available and/or potential evidence as early as possible.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 7th May 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Met Police officers are to start wearing cameras on their uniforms as part of plans to boost transparency and accelerate convictions.’
BBC News, 8th May 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Judges should warn juries about the common misconceptions people have about rape before they are allowed to hear any evidence, two of the leading figures in the fight against sex crime say today.’
The Independent, 6th May 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Earlier this week, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has published its report on The implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform judicial review (HL 174 HC 868 2013-14). The report is, perhaps unsurprisingly, generally critical of the proposals and of the way in which they have been or are being introduced. I have already summarised the proposals and commented on some of them in earlier posts. In this post, I draw attention to some key passages in the JCHR’s report, commenting on them briefly and, at the end of the piece, offering some reflections on some of the underlying constitutional issues highlighted by the Committee.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st May 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The first ever case allowing vulnerable victims and witnesses to give evidence ahead of the trial will start tomorrow.’
Ministry of Justice, 28th April 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice
‘Vulnerable witnesses can give evidence before a trial starts from Monday as part of a pilot scheme in three Crown Courts in England.’
BBC News, 28th April 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024