‘Rape prosecutions and convictions have halved in three years, prompting concerns that the offence is effectively being decriminalised. These are some of the challenges rape victims face in getting their cases to court.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘David Travers QC of 6 Pump Court discusses hindsight bias, its relevance to health and safety cases and how to avoid its impact.’
Six Pump Court, July 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘It is of fundamental importance that judicial decisions should be made free from bias or partiality – it has long been recognised that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done (R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256). A judge must, therefore, recuse themselves in circumstances of actual or apparent bias.’
Law Society's Gazette, 27th July 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A high court judge has been taken off a case centred on the care of a child after “pejorative comments” she made about the child’s mother were accidentally broadcast to people taking part in a hearing remotely.’
The Guardian, 25th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A High Court judge has refused to recuse himself from a planning case involving Surrey Heath Borough Council after claimants accused him of bias.’
Local Government Lawyer, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In this interview with Pietra Asprou for Lexis Nexis, David Travers QC considers the impact of hindsight bias in health and safety cases, and what can be done to avoid it.’
Six Pump Court, 21st July 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘Fears Ofqual’s Covid-19 method of adjusting marks in line with a school’s prior performance will penalise bright pupils.’
The Guardian, 20th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘An attempt by police chiefs to grapple with racism claims by launching a panel to recommend action has been criticised by victims’ representatives and met with scepticism from within their own ranks.’
The Guardian, 18th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Serafin had sued Malkiewicz & Ors for libel in respect of an article they had published about him in Nowy Czas, a newspaper addressing issues of interest to the Polish community in the UK. The Court of Appeal found that the conduct of the trial by Mr Justice Jay in the High Court had been unfair towards the claimant and allowed the claimant’s appeal. The defendants appealed against that finding to the Supreme Court. They also challenged the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the effect of the Defamation Act 2013, S4, which sets out “the public interest defence” to a defamation claim.’
UKSC Blog, 3rd June 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A High Court judge “harassed and intimidated” a litigant in person in ways which “surely would never have occurred if the claimant had been represented”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The supreme court has ordered the re-trial of a long-running libel case after finding that a high court judge, Mr Justice Jay, subjected the unrepresented claimant to a “barrage of hostility” and offensive language.’
The Guardian, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A judge has rejected a recusal application on the grounds of apparent bias, based on him being in the same class at school as the director of a defendant company more than 45 years ago.’
Litigation Futures, 13th May 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Last month European football’s governing body, UEFA, announced that English champions Manchester City had been fined 30 million Euros and banned from the Champions League – the most illustrious competition in European football. The Adjudicatory Chamber of UEFA’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) handed down a two-year ban on the basis that Man City had breached Financial Fair Play Regulations. The club have responded fiercely, complaining of a ‘prejudicial process’ and alleging that the case was ‘initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA.’ Against this background it is thought likely that City will rely on human rights arguments in their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (a somewhat ironic development in the view of some commentators given previous criticisms of the human rights records of the club’s backers).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 23rd March 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In R (Short) v (1) Police Misconduct Tribunal (2) Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police [2020] EWHC 385 (Admin), Mr Justice Saini delivered a resounding reaffirmation that misconduct hearing panels are well able to put irrelevant and prejudicial matters out of their minds rather than having to recuse themselves and that they are able to determine their own procedures, just like civil courts and tribunals.’
UK Police Law Blog, 27th February 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘In Cadent Gas Ltd v Singh [2019] UKEAT 0024/19/0810, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered whether the personal animus of a manager who had been heavily involved in a disciplinary investigation had tainted the dismissal process as a whole, even though the dismissing managers had not shared that animus. Furthermore, the EAT considered whether that manager’s prejudice towards the Claimant, informed by his trade union activities, could be attributed to the employer.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 3rd January 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘A district judge is suing the Ministry of Justice and two supervising judges for unconscious bias, harassment, victimisation, micro-aggression and discrimination after a complaint was made against him by an appellant in one of his cases.’
Law Society's Gazette, 11th December 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘A mother has claimed that a judge’s “outdated views” on sexual assault led him to rule against her after she accused a former partner of rape during a child custody case.’
Daily Telegraph, 5th December 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025