Visitor bond scheme to be scrapped by government – BBC News
“Plans for a £3,000 ‘security bond’ for some ‘high risk’ overseas visitors to the UK are to be abandoned, the Home Office has confirmed.”
BBC News, 3rd November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Plans for a £3,000 ‘security bond’ for some ‘high risk’ overseas visitors to the UK are to be abandoned, the Home Office has confirmed.”
BBC News, 3rd November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The former justice secretary Ken Clarke has rekindled the debate about wearing veils in court by claiming that a proper trial is impossible if a defendant is ‘in a kind of bag’.”
The Guardian, 3rd November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The council that repeatedly promised to protect its children following the deaths of Baby Peter and Victoria Climbié has launched yet another serious case review (SCR) into a child abuse case, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The new investigation has started only a month after the publication of Haringey’s last SCR into Child T, a three-year-old who was beaten so badly with a belt, stick and cable that he was hospitalised yet was still returned to the family home, where the abuse continued. The latest investigation is the council’s sixth known SCR – investigations into serious incidents of child abuse – since the report into Baby Peter’s death was published in 2009.”
The Independent, 3rd November 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Teachers and health workers should be prosecuted for failing to alert the police to allegations of child abuse, according to the former director of public prosecutions, who is calling for an overhaul of the law to prevent more victims from slipping through the net.”
The Guardian, 4th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Judicial review faces an uncertain future. The government’s proposed reforms in this area – not least, restricting who may bring a claim – are attracting controversy. Our new report takes a step back from the heat of that debate to illuminate the broader picture from a constitutional perspective. What are the constitutional implications of attempts by the executive to limit the ability of individuals or organisations to challenge its decisions – and the power of the courts to rule on the lawfulness of its actions? What is the impact on the rule of law and the relationship between institutions of state? What are the potential consequences of altering the constitutional balance between our judges and Parliament? And why is this issue so important to the government, to Parliament and to lawyers?”
Date: Tuesday 19th November 2013, 6.15pm
Location: The British Academy, 10-11 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AH
Charge: See website for details
More information can be found here.
“Do you object to swearing an oath on the Bible? Sorry, I hope that question didn’t put you off your stride when settling down to read this article. It’s the same question witnesses are asked when they’re about to give evidence in criminal trials.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 1st November 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“A man who spray painted offensive graffiti on a mosque has been ordered to carry out 270 hours of unpaid work.”
BBC News, 1st November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“There was nothing unlawful in the Foreign Secretary’s decision to allow a UK resident to be added to the UN’s Consolidated List of members of Al-Quaida and its associates.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Number of military lawyers employed by the Ministry of Defence has risen by nearly half in recent years.”
Daily Telegraph, 1st November 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A man whose life was ruined when he was charged with child sex offences after looking at legal gay pornography in a hotel room has accused the police and Crown Prosecution Service of a ‘homophobic witch-hunt’ after his case was finally thrown out. The defendant endured a ‘two-year nightmare’ after being arrested in front of his family, charged with 10 offences almost a year later and repeatedly bailed, before every charge was dropped. If convicted he would have faced jail and been forced to sign the sex offenders’ register. His father died while he was awaiting trial.”
The Independent, 1st November 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Supreme Court
Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] UKSC 67 (30 October 2013)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
SO v The Crown [2013] EWCA Crim 1725 (11 October 2013)
Silvera, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1764 (04 October 2013)
Bailey, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1779 (04 October 2013)
High Court (Technology and Construction Court)
Co-Operative Group Ltd v Birse Development Ltd [2013] EWHC 3352 (TCC) (17 October 2013)
High Court (Patents Court)
HTC Corporation v Nokia Corporation [2013] EWHC 3247 (Pat) (30 October 2013)
Source: www.bailii.org
Law, morality and religion in the family courts (PDF)
Keynote address given by Sir James Munby
The Law Society’s Family Law Annual Conference, 29th October 2013
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“Matthew Burman, barrister of St Albans Chambers explores the respective legal duties of the NHS and local authorities in securing the provision of psychotherapy for parents in care proceedings.”
Family Law Week, 31st October 2013
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
Young Legal Aid Lawyers: Social Mobility (PDF)
Speech by Lady Hale
London South Bank University, 30th October 2013
Source: www.supremecourt.gov.uk
“Where a statute required that something be prescribed in delegated legislation, it envisaged that the latter would add something to what was contained in the primary legislation. Therefore the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011, purportedly made under section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995 which provided for the making of regulations to require claimants in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance to participate in schemes of a ‘prescribed description’, were unlawful because they set up a named scheme without any description over and above what was already in section 17A.”
WLR Daily, 30th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A somewhat curious additional point arises out of the case of R (Antoniou) – see my earlier post for the main issue – in which the court decided that Article 2 ECHR does not require an independent investigation into deaths in state detention prior to a coroner’s inquest. There was therefore no obligation to ensure that there was an independent investigation into the suicide, or death resulting from self-harm, of a mentally ill person detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. There is such an investigation when a prisoner commits suicide. The Claimant thought this smacked of discrimination against the mentally disabled. The Court disagreed – on the somewhat surprising ground that you can’t be disabled once you’re dead.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st October 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Lawyers will be given financial incentives to encourage clients to plead guilty early under government reforms to legal aid but will lose money if cases go to trial, according to solicitors in London.”
The Guardian, 1st November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk