Source: https://jimmeyer.co.uk/case-law/s-6/
Timestamp: 2020-04-01 05:34:33
Document Index: 365973832

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'art.2', 'art.3', 'art.8', 'art.10', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art.5', 'UKSC ', 'art.146', 'EWCA ']

[2017] EWHC 1967 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Judge Saini QC)
The court set out the principles of procedural fairness standards that applied when the secretary of state considered applications from life prisoners for release on compassionate grounds under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 s.30.
[2017] EWCA Crim 33
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Blake J, Judge Leonard QC)
The Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s decision that the prosecution had failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying an extension to the two-year time limit for confiscation orders. The judge had had insufficient regard to the delays caused by the defendant, and any prejudice from the prosecution’s application for an adjournment of the confiscation hearing could have been met with a costs order.
[2016] EWHC 3295 (Ch)
Ch D (Sir Geoffrey Vos C)
The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the press and all other persons from publishing the names or identities of two individuals who, as children, had pleaded guilty to very serious offences committed against two young victims. The case had caused almost unparalleled public outrage directed at the individuals, and the real risk to their ECHR art.2, art.3 and art.8 rights made the interference with the art.10 right to freedom of expression an absolute necessity.
[2016] EWCA Crim 2139
CA (Crim Div) (Elias LJ, Sweeney J, Judge Dean QC)
The court allowed an appeal out of time against a confiscation order as subsequent events related to the beneficial ownership of properties had altered the factual basis on which the original order had been made. The court stated that substantial injustice would otherwise have been caused to the appellant, but emphasised that it would be a very rare case where a party could pursue an appeal in such a way so long out of time.
[2016] EWCA Civ 1033
CA (Civ Div) (Jackson LJ, McCombe LJ)
The detention of a young offender for an additional 11 days after the expiry of his sentence had not breached his rights under ECHR art.5(1). Although the award of additional days had been quashed after the days had been served, it had been imposed in accordance with a judicial procedure prescribed by law and had remained lawful until the date of its quashing.
[2016] UKSC 18
SC (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lord Clarke JSC, Lord Hughes JSC, Lord Toulson JSC, Lord Hodge JSC)
The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 s.2(1) provided compensation only for physical damage to property and not for consequential losses such as loss of profits or rent.
[2016] NICA 11
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Gillen LJ, Keegan J)
The court held that it had jurisdiction to deal with an appeal by way of case stated despite the appellant having exceeded the time limit in the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 art.146(9) by fifteen weeks. It also held that the “lack of knowledge” defence in the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 s.6(8) placed a legal rather than an evidential burden on those wishing to avail themselves of it.
IPT (Burton J, Carr J, Charles Flint QC, Susan O'Brien QC, Graham Zellick QC)
Although the tribunal had the power to order compensation to be paid to a journalist who had been the subject of an unlawful authorisation issued under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 s.22, the harm caused by the obtaining of communications data was not such as to justify compensation. Just satisfaction had been achieved by the declaration that the obtaining of the data was unlawful.
[2015] EWCA Crim 1872
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Edis J, Judge Cutts QC)
A conviction for possessing false identity documents was quashed where the offence had erroneously been charged under the Identity Cards Act 2006 s.25(1)(a) instead of the Identity Documents Act 2010 and the Crown conceded that the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 could not be used to substitute an alternative offence.