‘A woman who wrote about being sexually assaulted, naming her attacker, has defeated a libel action he brought against her after a judge ruled that her account was true on the balance of probabilities.’
The Guardian, 27th April 2023
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Briggs v Drylined Homes Ltd [2023] EWHC 382 (KB) (judgment here) concerned a claim by the widow of Mr Brian Briggs, who died in 2017 after contracting mesothelioma. The Claimant brought a claim against one of her husband’s former employers, Drylined Homes Ltd (“DHL”). DHL had engaged Mr Briggs between approximately 1975 and 1979 to carry out “drylining”, namely putting up plasterboards during house construction.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 1st March 2023
Source: ropewalk.co.uk
‘Sexual Risk Orders (‘SRO’) under section 122A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’) were introduced in 2015 by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Unlike the similar Sexual Harm Prevention Orders introduced at the same time, SROs may be obtained without a criminal conviction for a sexual offence. Being civil orders obtained in the Magistrates’ Court the applicant authority (a police force or the National Crime Agency) is able to rely on the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (‘the 1995 Act’) and the Magistrates’ Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999. However, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 significantly altered the process by amending section 122A(6) to state that the court need only be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a defendant has done at least one act of a sexual nature as alleged. Previously, the standard of proof had been held to be the criminal standard, though the statute was silent as to the standard required. This amendment took effect on 29 November 2022 and there has already been a noticeable upsurge in the number of applications for these Draconian orders.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th March 2023
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Three recent cases indicate a substantial change in law and practice, with inquests now seemingly free to make a determination of unlawful killing notwithstanding the acquittal of a defendant at a criminal trial.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th February 2023
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This appeal concerns the correct approach to evidence and the burden and standard of proof in the context of historic claims for the recovery of input Value Added Tax (“VAT”). Input tax is the VAT incurred when the taxpayer buys in supplies which it uses for the purpose of a business activity.’
UKSC Blog, 19th October 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The family of a teenager stabbed to death in an upmarket Cheshire village has won the right to have a judicial review into his inquest findings.’
The Independent, 18th May 2022
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Three private landlords have won appeals at the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) over whether the criminal standard of proof was met in rent disputes at the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).’
Local Government Lawyer, 25th February 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Inquests are not adversarial proceedings. However, the Supreme Court decision in Maughan (lowering the standard of proof for an inquest conclusion of ‘unlawful killing’ to the balance of probabilities) has left practitioners concerned about the ability of the coronial process to protect Interested Persons (“IPs”) from the serious reputational damage such a conclusion will inevitably cause. This article looks at one critical part of the process, namely disclosure.’
Henderson Chambers, 19th January 2021
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘On 13th January 2021, the new Chief Coroner, HHJ Teague QC, published Law Sheet No.6. This new guidance comes exactly two months after the Supreme Court gave judgment on 13th November 2020 in the case of R (on the application of Thomas Maughan) v. HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 where it ruled by majority that all conclusions in coronial inquests, whether short form or narrative, are to be determined on the civil standard of proof: the balance of probabilities.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 19th January 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘LPP has been described as “a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests” (R v Derby Magistrates’ Court, Ex p B [1996] AC 487, 507). In the last few years there has been a significant amount of litigation relating to documents subject to LPP (see for instance Sports Direct International plc v Financial Reporting Council [2020] EWCA Civ 177 and Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600). This is perhaps not surprising given how valuable and sensitive such documents will be in any litigation or investigation by a regulator. Each of these cases tests the boundaries of LPP. The recent decision of Tom Leech QC sitting as a judge of the High Court in Barrowfen is one such decision and particularly important for those who advise directors or are bringing or defending a claim against directors. Barrowfen is an important decision on the iniquity exception in the context of allegations of breaches by a director of his statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006.’
Exchange Chambers, 4th January 2021
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘On the 11th of July 2016 a prisoner Mr James Maughan was found dead in his prison cell having hanged himself. The investigation into the factual circumstances surrounding his death found that he had a history of mental health issues and had previously made threats of self-harm. The evening before his death he had been in an agitated state.’
5SAH, 7th January 2021
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘Although suicide was decriminalised more than 60 years ago, it was still always necessary to meet the criminal standard of proof when reaching a finding that someone had taken their own life. But this month, in a departure from this common understanding, the Supreme Court in R (Maughan) v HM Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 found that the ‘degree of conclusivity’ required was, in fact, the civil standard – the balance of probabilities.’
Law Society's Gazette, 30th November 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has on 13 November 2020 handed down the judgment in this case concerning the appropriate standard of proof for conclusions at inquests.’
Park Square Barristers, 13th November 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘By a majority of three to two, the Supreme Court has held that the standard of proof for findings of suicide and unlawful killing at an inquest is the balance of probabilities: R (Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020]
UKSC 46.’
Ropewalk Chambers, 16th November 2020
Source: www.ropewalk.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has today lowered the standard of proof for all conclusions in inquest proceedings, including unlawful killing and suicide, in a decision that could have wide-reaching implications for the recording of deaths in England and Wales.’
Law Society's Gazette, 13th November 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘By a majority the Supreme Court has dismissed this appeal concerning the standard of proof, or degree of conclusivity, required for the determination of the result of an inquest into a death where the question is whether the deceased committed suicide.’
UKSC Blog, 13th November 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has now issued its judgment in this important case for Coroners and inquests dealing with the standard of proof to be applied where the death might have been caused by suicide or unlawful killing.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th November 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has delivered a judgment in R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Officer for Police Conduct [2020] EWCA Civ 1301 regarding the applicable conduct standard and provisions governing police in cases of use of force.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th October 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Ceon Broughton, a rapper jailed over the death of his partner Louella Fletcher-Michie from a drug overdose at Bestival has won his appeal against his manslaughter conviction. Broughton’s conviction in 2019 and seven-year prison sentence for manslaughter was quashed on 18 August 2020 by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard before The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Lord Burnett, Mr Justice Sweeney and Mr Justice Murray.’
Garden Court Chambers, 18th August 2020
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘On the 11 March 2020 the Supreme Court gave their judgment in the case of R v Copeland [2020] UKSC 8. This case concerned the interpretation of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (‘the Act’), section 4(1). This provides that anyone who makes or has in their possession explosive substances is liable to prosecution unless they can show it was ‘for a lawful object’. Specifically, the Court considered the meaning of what constituted ‘a lawful object’ and the case is likely to be of some interest to those involved in counter-terrorism matters.’
KCH Garden Sq, August 2020
Source: kchgardensquare.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023