law reports – Page 117 – Current Awareness

‘A person who was currently unfit to plead, and might remain unfit to plead, was an accused person for the purposes of section 70(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003. It might be unjust and oppressive to order such a person’s extradition without considering whether an undertaking should be required from the requesting state to permit his return to the United Kingdom in the event it was found, after a reasonable time for further treatment in the requesting state, that he was likely to remain unfit.’

WLR Daily, 31st January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Das) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others – WLR Daily

Posted February 4th, 2014 in appeals, detention, immigration, law reports, mental health by sally

Regina (Das) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others [2014] EWCA Civ 45; [2014] WLR (D) 39

‘Where the Secretary of State for the Home Department intended to remove from the United Kingdom a person suffering from a mental illness, whether that illness fell within the definition in the Secretary of State’s immigration detention policy of a “serious mental illness” which could not be satisfactorily managed within detention, so that the person could not be detained absent very exceptional circumstances, did not depend on whether the mental illness was of a level of requiring in-patient medical attention or rendering the person liable to being sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, but on whether in all the circumstances the person was “suffering” from the illness and the illness was serious enough to mean that it could not be satisfactorily managed in detention.’

WLR Daily, 28th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Mackle (Patrick); Regina v Mackle (Plunkett Jude); Regina v Mackle (Benedict); Regina v McLaughlin (Henry) – WLR Daily

Posted February 4th, 2014 in appeals, confiscation, consent, law reports, Northern Ireland, Supreme Court by sally

Regina v Mackle (Patrick); Regina v Mackle (Plunkett Jude); Regina v Mackle (Benedict); Regina v McLaughlin (Henry) [2014] UKSC 5; [2014] WLR (D) 40

‘The fact that a confiscation order had been made by consent did not preclude a defendant from appealing against it on the ground that the consent had been based on a mistake of law as a result of wrong legal advice.’

WLR Daily, 29th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Lewis (Leroy) – WLR Daily

Posted February 3rd, 2014 in appeals, assault, attempts, evidence, indictments, jurisdiction, law reports, theft by sally

Regina v Lewis (Leroy): [2013] EWCA Crim 2596; [2014] WLR (D) 38

‘Once an indictment had been properly preferred and signed it remained the indictment in the case, so that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try a case where no evidence had been offered on the single indictable offence and only summary offences were left to be tried.’

WLR Daily, 5th December 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted February 3rd, 2014 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Onuigbo (aka Okoronkwo) v R [2014] EWCA Crim 65 (31 January 2014)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Crawford, R (on the application of) v The University of Newcastle Upon Tyne [2014] EWHC 162 (Admin) (31 January 2014)

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Dewani [2014] EWHC 153 (Admin) (31 January 2014)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Jack Wills Ltd v House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd [2014] EWHC 110 (Ch) (31 January 2014)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Georgian American Alloys, Inc & Or v White & Case LLP & Anor [2014] EWHC 94 (Comm) (31 January 2014)

Malhotra v Malhotra & Anor [2014] EWHC 113 (Comm) (31 January 2014)

High Court (Family Division)

Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AA [2014] EWHC 1666 (Fam) (28 January 2014)

High Court (Patents Court)

Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc & Anor [2014] EWHC 146 (Pat) (31 January 2014)

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Watson Farley & Williams (A Firm) v Ostrovizky [2014] EWHC 160 (QB) (31 January 2014)

Source: www.bailii.org

BAILII: Recent Decisions

Posted January 31st, 2014 in law reports by sally

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Kanu, R. v [2014] EWCA Crim 67 (23 January 2014)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Barnes v Revenue And Customs [2014] EWCA Civ 31 (30 January 2014)

Innerspaces Self Storage Ltd v Harding & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 46 (30 January 2014)

Murrills v Berlanda & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 6 (30 January 2014)

High Court (Chancery Division)

Keene (Trustees of the Graphic Reproduction Federation) v Wellcom London Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 134 (Ch) (30 January 2014)

Roadchef (Employee Benefits Trustees) Ltd v Hill & Anor [2014] EWHC 109 (Ch) (29 January 2014)

High Court (Administrative Court)

Thakeham Village Action Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council [2014] EWHC 67 (Admin) (29 January 2014)

Zerom, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 92 (Admin) (30 January 2014)

High Court (Commercial Court)

Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanari Spa [2014] EWHC 129 (Comm) (30 January 2014)

Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor [2014] EWHC 112 (Comm) (30 January 2014)

Source: www.bailii.org

Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides – WLR Daily

Posted January 31st, 2014 in asylum, EC law, international law, interpretation, law reports, war by sally

Diakité v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides (Case C-285/12); [2014] WLR (D) 37

‘An internal “armed conflict” existed, for the purposes of article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC, if a state’s armed forces confronted one or more armed groups or if two or more armed groups confronted each other. It was not necessary for that conflict to be categorised as “armed conflict” not of an international character under international humanitarian law; nor was it necessary to carry out, in addition to an appraisal of the level of violence present in the territory concerned, a separate assessment of the intensity of the armed confrontations, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved or the duration of the conflict.’

WLR Daily, 30th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

IA (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted January 31st, 2014 in asylum, burden of proof, law reports, refugees, Scotland, treaties, United Nations by sally

IA (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees intervening) [2014] UKSC 6; [2014] WLR (D) 36

‘National decision-makers had an independent and autonomous responsibility under the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906) to determine the applications of those who had applied for asylum. An earlier decision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) to grant refugee status was not binding on the national decision-maker, nor did it create any presumption or shift the burden of proof.’

WLR Daily, 29th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Court of Appeal to rule on standard of proof in ‘follow the settlement’ clause dispute – OUT-LAW.com

Posted January 31st, 2014 in insurance, law reports, standard of proof by sally

‘The Court of Appeal is to consider the standard of proof to be applied in unqualified ‘follow the settlement’ clauses in deciding whether a claim falls within the risks covered by the reinsurance policy following a recent High Court judgment.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 30th January 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Shearman (trading as Charles Shearman Agencies) v Hunter Boot Ltd – WLR Daily

Posted January 30th, 2014 in agency, compensation, indemnities, law reports, regulations by sally

Shearman (trading as Charles Shearman Agencies) v Hunter Boot Ltd [2014] EWHC 47 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 32

‘A clause in an agency agreement which dealt with an agent’s entitlement to compensation or an indemnity on termination of the agreement was neither consistent with nor permitted by regulation 17(2) of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993.’

WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Powell (Carl) – WLR Daily

Posted January 30th, 2014 in appeals, crime, evidence, indictments, joinder, law reports by sally

Regina v Powell (Carl) [2014] WLR (D) 34

‘The statutory regimes concerning joinder of counts in an indictment and cross-admissibility of evidence were separate and the settled criteria concerning joinder had not been superseded in consequence of the changes in relation to evidence of bad character made by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.’

WLR Daily, 29th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Castle v Crown Prosecution Service – WLR Daily

Posted January 30th, 2014 in law reports, road traffic offences, ultra vires by sally

Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] WLR (D) 33

‘A traffic order permitting the imposition of variable speed limits, which had been signed by an employee of the Highways Agency acting as the alter ego of the Secretary of State, was not ultra vires section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.’

WLR Daily, 24th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

IM v LM and others – WLR Daily

Posted January 30th, 2014 in appeals, consent, law reports, mental health by sally

IM v LM and others [2014] EWCA Civ 37; [2014] WLR (D) 31

‘The test for determining whether a person enjoyed capacity to marry or to experience sexual relations included an evaluation of the person’s ability to use and to weigh relevant information.’

WLR Daily, 23rd January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina (Core Issues Trust) v Transport for London (Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for Women and Equalities intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted January 30th, 2014 in advertising, appeals, Christianity, freedom of expression, homosexuality, law reports, London by sally

Regina (Core Issues Trust) v Transport for London (Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for Women and Equalities intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 34; [2014] WLR (D) 35

‘Where the decision of a public body was shown to be unlawful, the court should be reluctant to refuse relief on the ground that, acting lawfully, the decision-maker would have reached the same decision, particularly if the power had been exercised not for its statutory purpose but for an ulterior motive. In such a case the court should grant appropriate relief.’

WLR Daily, 27th January 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk