‘A parole judge has apologised to bereaved parents for saying that victim impact statements make no difference. So what are they really for? Paul Gallagher finds out.’
The Independent, 6th August 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Public bodies defending a decision to withhold information requested under freedom of information (FOI) laws can submit evidence to an information rights tribunal in secret, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 4th August 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Last month I penned a post on the issue of how the principle of natural justice can be reconciled with the use of closed procedures in FOIA appeals. The post was written against the backdrop of the Court of Appeal hearing of the appeal in the Browning case. Today the Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment. Mr Browning’s appeal was dismissed.’
Panopticon, 30th July 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Jennifer Kotilaine, barrister, of 42 Bedford Row considers the President’s endorsement of the three-stage test in Re ZZ [2014] EWFC 9.’
Family Law Week, 28th July 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘An investigation has been launched following claims a judge fell asleep in court, causing a child rape trial to be halted.’
The Guardian, 26th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘ More than 30 criminal cases that relied on evidence given by undercover reporter Mazher Mahmood are being reviewed in light of the collapse of the Tulisa Contostavlos drugs trial.
The Crown Prosecution Service is looking again at the cases -as well as three that are still going on – after a judge ended the pop singer’s trial because there were “strong grounds” to believe the Sun reporter had lied in court and manipulated evidence.’
Daily Telegraph, 24th July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina v Jones (Nicholas) [2014] WLR (D) 319
‘A finding by a tribunal that an expert’s evidence was not as objective and independent as it might have been was not evidence of bad character with sections 98 and 112 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.’
WLR Daily, 16th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Police and prosecutors are discussing whether any legal action could follow the collapse of the trial of singer Tulisa Contostavlos, which was abandoned after the judge ruled that the Sun on Sunday’s veteran investigative reporter Mazher Mahmood was likely to have lied about talking to another witness about changing their evidence.’
The Guardian, 22nd July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The trial of the singer and TV entertainer Tulisa Contostavlos over drugs allegations has dramatically collapsed after the judge ruled that the Sun investigative reporter whose evidence was central to the case had seemingly lied on oath.’
The Guardian, 21st July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v Mehmedov [2014] EWCA Crim 1523; [2014] WLR (D) 325
‘A certificate of a conviction in a member state of the European Union was admissible in evidence under section 73(1) of the Police and Criminal Act 1984 even where the conviction preceded the accession of the member state concerned to the European Union.’
WLR Daily, 18th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Britain’s biggest force faces a large compensation claim as a tribunal rules Carol Howard was treated unfairly because of her sex and race.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary: [2014] UKSC 37; [2014] WLR (D) 265
‘Where, after a defendant’s trial had ended in his conviction, material came to light which might cast doubt on the safety of the conviction, the prosecutors’ duty of disclosure required him to disclose that material to the defendant, unless there were good reason not to do so, and, where there was a real prospect that further inquiry might reveal such material, to make that inquiry. There was, however, no indefinitely continuing duty on police or prosecutors to respond to whatever inquiries the defendant might make for access to case materials to allow re-investigation.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The issue of just how open our justice system should be is an issue which is or should be of fundamental concern to all practising lawyers. If, as Jeremy Bentham once stated ‘publicity is the very soul of justice’ (cited by Lord Shaw in the leading case of Scott v Scott [1913] AC 477), then an open justice system is the corporeal expression of that soul. However, we now live in times where open justice is increasingly under threat. Indeed, as last week’s headlines reminded us all, matters have now got to a stage where some judges at least have been prepared to allow, not merely the deployment of a limited closed procedure to deal with certain aspects of a case, but a completely secret trial. It no doubt came as a relief to many that the Court of Appeal was not prepared to sanction such a comprehensive departure from the open justice principle: Guardian News v AB CD. However, the mere fact that the judiciary was prepared to contemplate such a procedure shows how far we have come since the days of Scott v Scott.’
Panopticon, 18th June 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘A man serving life in prison for murdering his ex-girlfriend has lost his fight to have forensic exhibits retested.’
BBC News, 18th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th June 2014
‘A salesman serving life in prison for murdering his former girlfriend will today find out the result of his Supreme Court fight to have key forensic exhibits retested.’
The Independent, 18th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘They are the two words the jury in the phone hacking trial may have waited months to hear. At 3.15pm in court 12 of the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Saunders said: “And finally.”’
The Independent, 12th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘An undercover Panorama investigation has found some paid expert witnesses prepared to provide helpful court reports despite a client’s confession.’
BBC News, 9th June 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A leaked diplomatic cable published on the internet by a third party did not violate the archive and documents of the diplomatic mission which sent the cable since it had already been disclosed to the world by a third party. On that narrow ground it was admissible as evidence in court. However, even if the evidence in question had been admitted, it would not have led to a different decision and therefore was not a ground for allowing the appeal.’
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A tribunal conducting asylum proceedings could admit, as expert evidence, a report by an organisation based on a telephone interview with an asylum claimant in which its analysts commented on the likelihood of that person originating from his claimed place of origin, based on the person’s dialect and answers to questions about the area in question, even though the report was in the name of the organisation rather than an individual and those contributing to it were identified only by serial numbers. However it was necessary for the tribunal in each particular case to be satisfied that the anonymity was necessary, with safeguards for the claimant in place, and that the authors of the report had demonstrated that they had relevant expertise for each matter on which they had commented.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2014
© Inner Temple Library 2025