‘While victims of trafficking who commit crimes have a defense in law in England and Wales, this has not been without controversy in the courts and is increasingly threatened in practice as British government ministers heap suspicion on those formally seeking recognition as victims of modern slavery. In the first part of this article, we review recent criminal cases decided by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales to explore why it is that some victims of trafficking break the law. These cases reveal the impossible choices that constitute the nexus of circumstances that lead victims to offend. In the second part of this article, we examine the cases of three people convicted of modern slavery and allied immigration crimes that are excluded from the statutory defense in English and Welsh law to show how morally comprehensible the commission of serious crimes can be in the aftermath of exploitation, destitution and trauma. We conclude by urging academics and activists in the modern slavery field to be vocal about how few victims fit their stereotypes and to help articulate the irreconcilably difficult choices that explain why some break the law in immigration contexts that are overtly hostile toward them.’
Jounal of Human Trafficking, 27th February 2024
Source: www.tandfonline.com
‘A man who murdered his wife and a pensioner during a “psychotic episode” has been jailed for life.’
Daily Telegraph, 25th January 2021
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In Stoffel & Co. v Grondona, the Supreme Court considered the operation of the common law defence of illegality in the context of solicitors’ negligence for the first time since its seminal decision in Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467. At the same time, the Court handed down judgment in a clinical negligence case: Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43.’
Hailsham Chambers, 3rd November 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘Lawyers have stressed that the illegality principle in civil claims remains intact despite the Supreme Court finding in favour of a mortgage fraudster in a dispute with a law firm.’
Law Society's Gazette, 4th November 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘After weeks of revelations and accusations in court about his personal relationships, actor Johnny Depp’s mammoth legal action against The Sun for libel is coming to an end – with a judgement expected at the end of the summer.’
BBC News, 28th July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘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
‘The variety of criminal offences created as part of HM Government’s response to the current Covid-19 pandemic has caused a discomforting amount of confusion for individuals, police, criminal practitioners, and courts. This brief article makes the small suggestion that, in the very short term, criminal defence practitioners may wish to seek adjournments for any prosecutions under the Public Health (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the Lockdown Regulations”) pending a judicial review of the lawfulness of the Regulations.’
Thomas More Chambers, 18th May 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘It is not uncommon for defendants to professional negligence claims to argue that the claimant should be barred from recovering damages because his or her cause of action is tarred by illegality. However, over recent years, the law has taken a variety of approaches to when illegality will provide a defence. With the issue about to come before the Supreme Court again, Helen Evans and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square explain.’
4 New Square, 4th May 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘MPs are to try to outlaw the courtroom murder defence of “rough sex gone wrong” during parliamentary debates on the domestic abuse bill, as cases of domestic violence soar during the coronavirus lockdown.’
The Guardian, 28th April 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The government is examining what can be done to stop the use of the “rough sex” defence in courts to escape justice, officials have said, as a long-awaited domestic abuse bill finally returns to parliament.’
The Guardian, 3rd March 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Campaigners say men are increasingly using the “rough sex” defence to try to get away with murdering women. They want the law changed to prevent such a defence and have the support of two MPs. But what difference would it make?’
BBC News, 22nd January 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In the majority of road traffic based personal injury claims, speed is often raised as an allegation of negligence. Witness statements abound with comments that the other driver ‘must’ve been speeding’ and even, my personal favourite, that ‘they sounded like they were speeding’. To what extent though does the speed of the other driver absolve the negligent driver? The High Court has considered this question in a recent case involving a motorcyclist, a side road and bank holiday driving.’
Zenith PI Blog, 30th August 2019
Source: zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The High Court has set aside judgment in default of defence in a £3m personal injury claim because, although the court was “unaware” of it, a defence had been served before the judgment.’
Litigation Futures, 14th August 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘In R v Riddell [2017] EWCA Crim 413 the court confirmed that self-defence can potentially be a defence to allegations of both dangerous and careless driving. Even though dangerous driving does not inherently involve the use of force, there may be a need for responsive force in particular circumstances. The availability of the defence will depend on the force used in the driving in those circumstances. The court observed that it would be wrong for self-defence to be available when driving off to avoid injury but unavailable to nudge someone away when fearing violence.’
Law Society's Gazette, 27th November 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024