Latest Cases

Sentence – Imprisonment. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that, while a judge had been entitled to depart from the mandatory five year minimum sentence for a firearm offence, a suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment, following the offender's guilty plea to an offence of possession of a prohibited firearm, contrary to s 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, had been unduly lenient. However, the sentence was not altered because the fact that the offender was entitled to credit for time spent on a previous qualifying curfew would make it wrong to interfere. 

Costs – Interim costs. The Queen's Bench Division made an interim costs order for the claimant following the settling of a personal injury action and in so doing took into account an After the Event insurance premium. 

Contempt of court – Committal. The Queen's Bench Division held that the claimant was not entitled to compensation under art 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights despite the decision of the Court of Appeal Civil Division that the trial judge's decision to committ and sentence to prison for contempt of court had been wrong. 

Criminal evidence – Sexual offence. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, in allowing the defendant's appeal against his conviction for rape, held that the judge had failed to properly consider admitting evidence that he had had consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant on a previous occasion and text messages from a third party should have been excluded from evidence under the general discretion conferred by s 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. 

Practice – Stay. The Chancery Division dismissed the defendant's application either for the court to stay the action formally, pending the result of the Georgian Court of Appeal's decision, or to informally refrain from giving judgment. It was not appropriate, given the history of the case, that the present court should await whatever decision came out of the Georgian courts, and it would proceed to deliver the judgment as soon as possible. 

Child – Care. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal by the claimant in respect of her claim against the defendant local authority regarding the physical and sexual abuse she had suffered while in foster care provided by the authority during the period 1985 to 1988. The court held that, in such circumstances, the authority was not vicariously liable for the assaults nor had it been under a non-delegable duty of care to have protected her from harm. 

Electricity – Overhead lines. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed an appeal against the determination of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) regarding the valuation date on which compensation was to be calculated for the diminution in value of land attributable to overhead power lines. The compensation payable under the deed of grant which had permitted the overhead power line was for the diminution in value of an asset, that asset being the value of the land with full planning permission, including the approval of reserved matters. 

Criminal law – Appeal by Crown. The Privy Council allowed the prosecution's appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, quashing the respondent's conviction for possession of an unlicensed firearm. It held that the Court of Appeal's criticisms of the evidence were not justified, as the trial judge had approached the case correctly and there had been no basis for departing from his verdict. 

Charterparty – Arbitration. The Commercial Court, among other things, dismissed the claimant company's application for an anti-suit injunction in shipping proceedings. The claimant's lack of promptness in its application was so serious that the proposed injunction would be neither just nor convenient, and should be refused. 

Prison – Prisoner. The Administrative Court dismissed the claimant's judicial review proceedings, alleging that his continued detention, despite a Parole Board direction for his conditional release, was a result of a breach by the defendants of statutory and other public law duties. The delay was not in breach of the defendants' statutory duties or discriminatory.