law reports – Page 64 – Current Awareness

‘The defendant was charged with murder. He admitted that he had strangled his partner, but denied murder on the ground that he had suffered a loss of control and that he had a personality disorder such as to give rise to a defence of diminished responsibility. He was convicted of murder. He applied for permission to appeal against conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had: (i) been wrong to decide that the burden of proof in relation to diminished responsibilty lay on the defendant under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended, notwithstanding article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; (ii) misdirected the jury in relation to the words “general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint” in section 54(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; and (3) failed to give the jury guidance on the meaning of the word “substantially” in section 2(1)(b) of the 1957 Act.’

WLR Daily, 3rd November 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2016 in administrators, agreements, insolvency, law reports by sally

In re Nortel Networks UK Ltd and related companies [2016] EWHC 2769 (Ch)

‘The administrators of nineteen Europe, Middle East and Africa companies in the N group and the conflict administrator of one of those companies applied for directions enabling a global settlement to be made of the vast majority of disputes that had arisen in relation to the affairs of the group and the distribution of the proceeds of sale of its assets.’

WLR Daily, 31st November 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Regina v Sardar (Anis Abid) – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2016 in anonymity, appeals, conspiracy, disclosure, evidence, explosives, law reports, murder, witnesses by sally

Regina v Sardar (Anis Abid) [2016] EWCA Crim 1616

‘The defendant was charged with murder, conspiracy to murder and, as an alternative count, conspiracy to cause an explosion. It was the Crown’s case that the defendant had been directly involved in the construction and/or deployment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), one of which had caused the death of an American soldier near Baghdad in September 2007. The defendant’s case was that he had been acting in lawful and proportionate defence of Sunni communities who were under threat from Shia militia; his fingerprints had been found on two of the bombs, although not the one which had resulted in the fatal explosion. The defendant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder; no verdict was sought on the alternative count of conspiracy to cause an explosion. He appealed against conviction on the ground, inter alia, of fresh evidence from two anonymous witnesses (C and D) who were now available to give evidence as to the frequency and quality of attacks by the Shia militia on the Sunni communities and the need for the Sunnis to act in self-defence. C and D were prepared to disclose their identities to the court and, within a strict “confidentiality ring”, to counsel for the Crown, the Crown Prosecution Service lawyer and two senior investigating officers with undertakings that there should be no further disclosure to anyone. However, the Crown was not prepared to give such undertakings. The defendant applied for an order under section 87(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (which required the defendant to inform the court and the prosecutor of the identity of the witness) for anonymity measures to be put in place. It was submitted that although the “prosecutor” had to be informed, that did not necessarily envisage disclosure beyond the person of the prosecutor.’

WLR Daily, 18th October 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

U v U – WLR Daily

Posted November 8th, 2016 in appeals, children, custody, family courts, law reports by sally

U v U

‘The parents of four children, two girls now aged 16 and 14 and two boys aged 12 and 6 years old, were married in Afghanistan in 1999 and came to the United Kingdom in 2000. They were all now British citizens. From 2011 the family experienced growing disagreement between the parents, and in 2012 the father married a second woman in secret which his wife did not know about until 2014. Following a number of incidents that year in which the police had sometimes been involved the father changed the locks to the marital home, the upshot being that the mother went to alternative accommodation with the three eldest children and the youngest boy stayed with the father and his second wife. By September 2014 the relationship between the parents had broken down. Proceedings in the case had been conducted before a High Court judge over some 14 hearings. At the first main fact-finding hearing in early 2015 in respect of child placement arrangements the judge made adverse findings against the mother including that she had caused the three older children emotional harm by her negative comments and outbursts against the father, that none of the mother’s allegations against the father justified ceasing contact between them and their father, and that the judge’s concern was to restore their relationship despite the mother’s resistance to contact between them and the father. The appointment of an expert psychiatrist from a well-known child health clinic was agreed between the parties to make an assessment of the family and also to offer therapy. The expert was able to achieve meetings between the three older children and the father, but unsupervised contact between the youngest child and the mother was not achieved until early 2016. At the latter contact session with the mother the child’s fringe was found to have been cut in a rough and ready manner. Each party blamed the other for the incident. It also emerged that the father had concealed a device on the child which recorded the conversation between the mother and the child. That showed that the mother had asked whether there was a new baby in the father’s house. At the welfare hearing in March 2016 the judge had four full reports from the expert who was also present and had made some recommendations, there was no CAFCASS officer’s report, the judge made further adverse findings against the mother including that she had cut the child’s hair, that she had assaulted the father and was unlikely to change her attitude towards him or that she would promote a positive relationship between the father and the three older children, that none of her allegations against the father had been proved, that at an earlier stage he had found that the three children had had an enjoyable holiday with the father in Barcelona but that they now refused to live with him because of the emotional harm caused by the mother’s attitude, and he concluded that the father was committed to the children, that the second wife was a force for good, that he was minded to order that all the children should live with the father but in the event only the older boy was ordered to reside with the father and the boy’s younger brother, noting that such an arrangement was contrary to the ordinary course for siblings to be in the same household. The mother appealed, contending that the welfare analysis was insufficient, that the older children’s wishes and feelings had not been properly considered and that a guardian should be appointed for their separate representation’

WLR Daily, 20th October 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk