Hayes v Willoughby – WLR Daily
Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17; [2013] WLR (D) 110
Where a person whose conduct would amount to harrassment of another within section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 sought to rely on the defence under section 1(3)(a) of the Act of having acted for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, he had to show that he had thought rationally about the material suggesting the possibility of criminality and had formed the view that the conduct said to constitute harassment was appropriate for the purpose of preventing or detecting it.
WLR Daily, 20th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
No consultation on principle of criminal legal aid tendering – LAG News Blog
“It was clear from the meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid yesterday evening that there is a wide gulf between legal aid practitioners and the government on the issue of competitive tendering for criminal legal aid services. Members of the audience, many of whom were solicitors and barristers specialising in criminal work, were shocked to hear Dr Elizabeth Gibby, the senior official at the Ministry of Justice responsible for the policy, declare that the consultation on competitive tendering planned for next month ‘will be on the model only and not the principle’.”
LAG News Blog, 21st March 2013
Source: www.legalactiongroupnews.org.uk
Bank Mellat (Appellant) v HM Treasury (Respondent) – Supreme Court
“Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, made the following statement in open court this afternoon:
‘Yesterday morning, having heard full argument on the issue the previous day, we decided, for reasons to be given later – and, it should be added, by a majority of six to three – that we had power to consider the closed judgment of Mr Justice Mitting (‘the closed judgment’) in this case. This would involve part of this hearing being conducted in private without Bank Mellat or its representatives being present. We also indicated that, on the basis of the arguments we had so far heard, we were not persuaded that it was necessary to take such a course.'”
Supreme Court, 21st March 2013
Source: www.supremecourt.gov.uk
Historical first as Supreme Court boots Iranian bank out of secret hearing – UK Human Rights Blog
“Extraordinary developments in the Supreme Court today as the court, for the first time in its history, conducted a secret hearing during which one of the parties, an Iranian Bank, was not allowed to take part. Full background to the case, Bank Mellat (Appellant) v HM Treasury (Respondent) is here.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
IPCC submits file to prosecutors over death of man after arrest – The Guardian
“The police watchdog has sent a file to the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the death of a man who was restrained and arrested by police officers in a city centre.”
The Guardian, 21st March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Recent Statutory Instruments – legislation.gov.uk
The Police and Justice Act 2006 (Commencement No. 16) Order 2013
The Education (Inspectors of Education and Training in Wales) Order 2013
The Hinkley Point C (Nuclear Generating Station) Order 2013
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2013
The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2013
The Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Amendment Order 2013
The Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013
The Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013
The Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) Regulations 2013
The Health and Safety (Sharp Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013
The Health Education England (Establishment and Constitution) Amendment Order 2013
The Financial Services Act 2012 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2013
Source: www.legislation.gov.uk
Plight of women in jail tackled with new policy on sentencing – The Independent
“Courts will be encouraged to hand more community sentences to women offenders – backed by curfews, tagging and unpaid work – in an attempt to reduce the female prison population.”
The Independent, 21st March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Supreme Court sits in secret for first time in history – The Independent
“The highest court in the land controversially sat in secret for the first time in its history today but insisted it had reached the decision with ‘great reluctance’.”
The Independent, 21st March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Lords plan parliamentary ‘ping pong’ to win battle over secret courts – The Guardian
“Peers intend to change justice and security bill as it shuttles between houses of parliament, government is warned.”
The Guardian, 21st March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Norfolk rapist who held Cambridge woman hostage gets life – BBC News
“A man who beat and raped his girlfriend and kept her hostage in his Norfolk flat for two weeks has been jailed for life.”
BBC News, 21st March 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Probation officers face social media gag as outsourcing row rumbles on – The Guardian
“The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has issued instructions that probation officers face the risk of disciplinary action if they publicly criticise on Twitter or other social media his plans to outsource 70% of their work with offenders.”
The Guardian, 21st March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Helen Fenwick: The Report of the Bill of Rights Commission: disappointing Conservative expectations or fulfilling them? – UK Constitution Law Group
“The Commission delivered its Report – A UK Bill of Rights? – The Choice Before Us – to the Government in December 2012. It is an odd document, dominated by the lack of agreement in the Commission as to the role that any human rights’ instrument in Britain should play. That was unsurprising since at the inception of the Commission the Coalition partners appeared to want it to play two different roles – defending or attacking the HRA. From the very outset the Commission and the idea of a Bill of Rights (BoR) was relied upon by Cameron and other senior Conservatives to allay anger in the Conservative party, and among some voters, directed at decisions made under the Human Rights Act. David Cameron announced the Commission’s inception in March 2011 at Prime Ministers’ Questions as a reaction to criticism of the decision of the Supreme Court that sex offenders should be able to challenge their inclusion on the Sex Offenders’ register. He indicated that a BoR would address the concerns expressed (17.3.11; see the Telegraph in relation to R and Thompson v SSHD). The idea that a BoR could right the wrongs of the HRA – would provide a panacea for the HRA’s ills – had apparently been embedded in the Conservative party psyche for some years: David Cameron in a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in 2006 Balancing freedom and security – A modern British Bill of Rights said that the HRA should be repealed: ‘….The Human Rights Act has a damaging impact on our ability to protect our society against terrorism…. . I am today committing my Party to work towards the production of a Modern Bill of Rights’. In contrast, the 2010 Liberal Democrat election manifesto promised to ‘Ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act.'”
UK Constitution Law Group, 21st March 2013
Source: www.ukconstitutionllaw.org
Man sued council for £33,000 after slipping on some berries – Daily Telegraph
“A man successfully sued his town council for nearly £33,000 after slipping on some berries while walking through a churchyard and breaking a bone.”
Daily Telegraph, 21st March 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Bart Simpson faces Mr Burns in court – but this is real-life Warwick, not Springfield – The Independent
“Judge Mr Recorder Burns gives company director Barton Simpson community order for attempting to board flight with antique hand gun.”
The Independent, 21st March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Damages-Based Agreements: potential or potential pitfall? – 11 Stone Buildings
“As part of the Jackson Reforms the much talked about Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 come into force on 1st April 2013. Damages Based agreements (‘DBAs’) open up the prospect of fees becoming entirely divorced from the actual hours worked on a case. This can lead to much higher fees than those which will arise using the hour-based method, even on a CFA with a 100% uplift. However, there are some potentially serious implications to consider. Don McCue takes a closer look at the potential impact of using DBAs, how they compare to Conditional Fee Agreements (‘CFAs’) in different litigation scenarios, and how DBAs relate to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (‘SRA’) Code of Conduct.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, March 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
Another Distinction Between Professional Disciplinary Proceedings and Internal Employment Disciplinary Hearings: Christou v London Borough of Haringey – Littleton Chambers
“If an individual has already been charged and given a warning for misconduct in a disciplinary process, can that process later be reopened, re-run and the individual dismissed for the same charge on the same evidence?”
Littleton Chambers, 14th March 2013
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
Has The Golden Thread Finally Been Snapped? – Zenith Chambers
“‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception
No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’
Per Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 – emphasis added.
There cannot be an English lawyer who is unaware of this paragraph in Viscount Sankey’s judgment in Woolmington. Many non-lawyers who have chanced to read the Rumpole stories will also be as aware of, if not as attached to, it.”
Full story (PDF)
Zenith Chambers, 19th March 2013
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
Secret commissions and proprietary claims – where are we now? – 11 Stone Buildings
“Practitioners were trained to believe that an agent would hold a bribe on trust for his principal. Then came Sinclair v Versailles which appeared to have decided that the principal’s remedy would be merely personal. Now everything seems to have changed again. In this ‘Insider’ note Peter Head examines the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in FHR European Ventures LLP v Mankarious and considers where we are now.”
Full story (PDF)
11 Stone Buildings, March 2013
Source: www.11sb.com
