‘The Law Society’s freedom of information adjudicator has ordered the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to disclose an investigator’s report, saying the regulator had overlooked “the public interest in transparency as a good in itself”.’
Legal Futures, 5th January 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Everyone knows that the privilege of communications between client and lawyer is a fundamental principle of English Common Law. But there has been some uncertainty as to what happens if the privilege is waived for the purpose of some litigation. That, it seems to me, is clearly dealt with by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd v Dechert LLP [2016] 1WLR 5027.’
Zenith PI blog, 3rd January 2017
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v Charity Commission was striking from many points of view. Mr Kennedy was a journalist frustrated by the way the Commission handled his allegations concerning George Galloway MP’s controversial Iraq charity, the Miriam Appeal. He applied for disclosure of documents under the Freedom of Information Act, arguing that a prohibition from disclosure under s 32 should be interpreted compatibly with Article 10, as required by s 3 of the HRA. However, the Supreme Court declined to follow the recent ECtHR case law, holding that Article 10 did not encompass a right of access to information, deprecating the parties’ failure to rely upon the common law right to information and disagreeing over the question of whether proportionality should replace Wednesbury unreasonableness: see my previous post on this here.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th December 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will seek to address potential investor detriment by outlining proposed reforms to crowdfunding rules in the early part of 2017, the regulator has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 9th December 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Sue Brookes, Senior Associate for Mills & Reeve LLP analyses the news and case law relating to financial remedies and divorce during November 2016.’
Family Law Week, 3rd December 2016
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has had its defence to a multi-million pound personal injury claim struck out by the High Court for failing to comply with an unless order over its disclosure obligations.’
Litigation Futures,25th November 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The government can keep secret “super-sensitive” documents from Britain’s spy agencies that might shed light on the mystery death of a fugitive Russian, the high court has ruled.’
The Guardian, 23rd November 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The law protecting alleged rape victims from disclosing details of their sex lives will be reviewed in the wake of Wales footballer Ched Evans’s case.’
BBC News, 16th November 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘FOCUS: Growing support for the use of digital technology in the UK courts means it is now easier and quicker for parties to litigation to view and exchange court papers.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th November 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Ashley Cukier considers two recent judgments of the High Court (Alfa Bank v Reznik [2016] EWHC B21 (Comm) and Taylor v Van Dutch Marine & Others [2016] EWHC 2201 (Ch)), which demonstrate the courts’ willingness, if the circumstances justify it, to hear committal applications in the absence of the defendant.’
Littleton Chambers, 6th October 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘An employee believes that the working relationship with her employer is breaking down. She anticipates future disputes about a bonus, and any imminent future termination. Wanting to ensure that she has key documents available in case she needs to seek advice or prove a future claim, she emails some of them – including confidential documents – to a hotmail account. Has she done anything wrong?’
Littleton Chambers, 4th October 2016
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
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
Regina v Norman (Robert) [2016] EWCA Crim 1564
‘The defendant was a prison officer who was paid more than £10,000 by a tabloid journalist in return for information about the prison which formed the subject matter of numerous published articles. He was charged with one count of misconduct in public office. The newspapers voluntarily disclosed evidence of the defendant’s identity and conduct. It was the prosecution case that the stories did not, save in a few cases, have any public interest and that the defendant knew that what he was doing was very wrong given the scale and scope of his activities, conducted behind his employer’s back, in return for substantial payments which were routed via his son’s bank account in order to conceal them. The defendant was convicted. He appealed against conviction the grounds that (i) the judge should have acceded to his submission to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process since the defendant’s identity and the evidence upon which the prosecution depended had been obtained by police misconduct in putting pressure upon the newspapers to give disclosure in order to avoid corporate prosecution; and (ii) the judge should have acceded to his submission of no case to answer, since the defendant’s misconduct did not meet the high threshold of seriousness required for it to be characterised as a criminal abuse of the public’s trust in him as an officer holder.’
WLR Daily, 20th October 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Rape suspects will lose the right to be told the names of their accusers in stranger cases under a move to change the law on sexual assaults. Campaigners claim victims of serious sexual crimes by strangers are frequently put in unnecessary danger by police officers disclosing the name of the accuser to the accused.’
The Guardian, 27th October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Does a media corporation breach a source’s article 10 rights by voluntarily disclosing their identity to the police? Is source confidentiality lost by criminal conduct? These are the questions that the Court of Appeal had to grapple with in the appeal against conviction brought by former prison officer Robert Norman.’
Panopticon, 24th October 2016
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Media lawyers have warned that the next national newspaper found guilty of identifying the alleged victim of a sexual assault is likely to face a six-figure penalty, following the latest case, which has resulted in an £80,000 fine for the Telegraph.’
The Guardian, 11th October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Divisional Court in R(Secretary of State) v Her Majesty’s Chief Coroner for Norfolk (British Airline Pilots intervening) made some potentially noteworthy comments regarding the coronial role and the need to avoid duplicating previous investigations.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 7th October 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Scotland Yard has said it will not publish the full report on its heavily criticised investigation of child sexual abuse allegations against VIPs because it contains “confidential and sensitive information”.’
The Guardian, 5th October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A doctor has successfully prevented the General Medical Council (GMC) from disclosing a report concerning an investigation in his professional competence to one of his patients.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th October 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A legal bid challenging Brexit has secured its first major success ahead of a High Court hearing. A senior judge has ordered the Government to reveal ‘secret’ legal arguments which it says means parliament does not have to be consulted on when to trigger Article 50. The decision has been heralded a major victory as a series of legal challenges trying to block Brexit are beginning.’
The Independent, 28th September 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025