McGraddie v McGraddie and another [2013] UKSC 58; [2013] WLR (D) 323
“An appellate court should not interfere with the trial judge’s conclusions on primary facts unless it was satisfied that he was plainly wrong.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Where a patent specification made a technical effect “plausible” it was open to a party to mount a challenge to the existence of that effect by the use of later evidence. There was no principled objection to the admission of evidence as to the true nature of the advance made by the invention in connection with an objection of lack of inventive step.”
WLR Daily, 29th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A man who killed and dismembered his friend has received a life sentence for his manslaughter.”
BBC News, 30th July 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“In Al Rawi & Ors v The Security Service & Ors [2011] UKSC 34; [2012] 1 AC 531 the claimants (respondents in the Supreme Court) were bringing civil claims for damages against the defendants (appellants in the Supreme Court) alleging complicity by the defendants in their mistreatment by foreign powers (including detention at Guantanamo Bay). The defendants as part of their defence wished to place before the court ‘security sensitive material’ – presumably the evidence of intelligence agents, or similar, denying the complicity – which for security reasons could not be disclosed to the claimants. Thus the defendants submitted that the court hold a “closed material procedure”. They envisaged that the evidence would be placed before the courts in closed session, i.e. a session from which the claimants and their representatives (and the public) were excluded. In the closed session the claimants would be represented by “special advocates” appointed by the court who would have access to the evidence but would not be able to take instructions from the claimants. Such procedures are controversial since they threaten the fundamental principles of open justice and natural justice. On the other hand, the national interest would doubtless be impaired, in some cases, if intelligence agents gave evidence and their methods and secrets were exposed in open court.”
UK Constitutional Law Group, 29th July 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
“Evidence in a trade mark and passing off case of the factual circumstances of a trade by a person in that trade, even when they deployed their experience in that trade to bolster their evidence, was not necessarily expert evidence within the meaning of CPR Pt 35.”
WLR Daily, 5th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The former Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Sir Norman Bettison, is to be investigated over claims he ordered his officers to compile a detailed report on the anti-racism campaigner Mohammed Amran, before he testified to the Macpherson Inquiry into the death of the teenager Stephen Lawrence.”
The Independent, 26th July 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The modern-day perils of using the internet while serving on a jury were all too evident today as two former jurors were brought before the High Court.”
The Independent, 23rd July 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Death of WMD dossier scientist contributed to erosion of trust in politics.”
The Guardian, 16th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Prosecutors and police were overwhelmed by more than 1 million pages of evidence during the trial of eight former South Wales police officers that eventually collapsed, the Crown Prosecution Service has said.”
The Guardian, 16th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Talking about female genital mutilation is the first step to tackling it, writes Felicity Gerry.”
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 11th July 2013
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
“Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, celebrated the successful deportation of Abu Qatada to Jordan on Sunday by saying the long-running saga meant there would have to be ‘wholesale changes’ in Britain’s human rights laws.”
The Guardian, 7th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A voicemail message which had been received by the intended recipient and subsequently stored in the telecommunications system of the network provider so that the intended recipient might thereafter have continued access to it by playing back the message, remained “in the course of transmission”. The interception of such a voicemail message intentionally and without lawful authority was therefore an offence contrary to section 1 of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.”
WLR Daily, 28th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Austin (Herbert): [2013] EWCA Crim 1028; [2013] WLR (D) 257
“It was the Crown’s responsibility to carry out the duties of disclosure. Judicial involvement could only properly be triggered by an application under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 by the prosecutor or by the defence. There was no provision for a trial judge to superintend the decisions of disclosure made by the prosecution on his own motion by inspecting unused material himself.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A rapist was finally convicted today after a series of police and prosecution blunders allowed him to evade justice for 15 years following his merciless attack on a pensioner inside her own home.”
The Independent, 25th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Lord Justice Leveson is to be invited to give evidence for the first time to MPs about his report on the future of press regulation and the resulting impasse over setting up a new industry watchdog.”
The Guardian, 25th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Lord Justice Leveson is facing mounting questions over why he decided to ignore a bombshell report detailing serious and widespread corruption among police and private investigators that was passed to his inquiry.”
The Independent, 24th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The Court of Protection is facing fresh questions about transparency, as The Independent reveals that its judges are making life-or-death decisions over the phone, with incomplete evidence, in proceedings that are not always recorded.”
The Independent, 24th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Parking tickets were illegally issued by a dozen cameras over at least two years, a London council has admitted – but it refuses to refund fined drivers.”
BBC News, 21st June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025