“The trial of six people accused of trying to shut down one of Britain’s biggest power stations has collapsed amid claims that an undercover policeman who infiltrated their group offered to give evidence on their behalf.”
The Independent, 10th January 2011
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Updated guidance for prosecutors on dealing with Non-Accidental Head Injury (NAHI) cases involving children, formerly known as ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’ cases, has been published today by the Crown Prosecution Service.”
Crown Prosecution Service, 6th January 2011
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
“Evidence of head injuries is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to charge someone with homicide, attempted murder or assault of young children, the Crown Prosecution Service said today.”
The Guardian, 6th January 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Regina v C [2010] EWCA Crim 2971; [2011] WLR (D) 347
“Where a defendant wished to challenge evidence of earlier convictions which the Crown sought to deploy as relevant to the question of whether the defendant was responsible for the commission of the offences for which he was on trial, the defendant’s bare assertion that he did not commit those earlier offences was inadequate; it was essential that the defendant provide a detailed defence statement identifying all the ingredients of the case which he proposed to advance for the purpose of discharging the evidential burden of proving that he did not commit the earlier offences.”
WLR Daily, 23rd December 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The first person to face a murder retrial following the discovery of new forensic evidence was convicted today.”
The Independent, 13th December 2010
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Scientists split over fibres that prosecution says links jailed office worker to home of widow killed during break-in.”
The Guardian, 9th December 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A coroner did not have power to receive sensitive evidence relating to the security service in a closed hearing in the absence of properly interested persons and their legal representatives.”
WLR Daily, 1st December 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The home secretary, Theresa May, has lost her legal attempt to force the coroner for the 7 July inquests to hold some sessions in secret.”
The Guardian, 22nd November 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Expert Evidence in Criminal Courts – the Problem – Speech by Lord Justice Leveson – Forensic Science Society, 18th November 2010.”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 18th November 2010
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“A senior judge has raised concerns over fingerprint evidence used in criminal trials, warning that it rests on ‘assumptions’ that have never been scientifically proven.”
Daily Telegraph, 19th November 2010
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The private investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal has been ordered by a high court judge to reveal who instructed him to engage in the illegal interception of voicemail messages of public figures.”
The Guardian, 17th November 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd and others [2010] UKSC 44; [2010] WLR(D) 270
“Facts communicated between parties in the course of ‘without prejudice’ negotiations which, but for the ‘without prejudice’ rule, would be admissible as part of the factual matrix or surrounding circumstances as an aid to construction of the resulting agreement, were admissible in evidence, as an exception to the rule, in a subsequent dispute between the parties as to the proper meaning of a clause in the agreement.”
WLR Daily, 29th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
In re Stakefield (Midlands) Ltd and others [2010] WLR (D) 249
“A defendant to disqualification proceedings brought by the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would not be entitled to have the proceedings struck out on the basis that the Secretary of State had committed a breach of duty by failing to obtain evidence or otherwise to investigate. Where, however imperfect the investigations might have been, the Secretary of State had in fact assembled evidence of a defendant’s unfitness to be concerned in the management of a company, it was for the court to determine at trial whether the Secretary of State had made out his case.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Magistrates ordered a pregnant Muslim woman to remove her veil while she gave evidence against her violent ex-partner.”
Daily Telegraph, 8th October 2010
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“High-profile requests from the US have brought Britain’s extradition laws into the news. But Britain actually sends more people for trial to Poland than anywhere else and the architect of the law, David Blunkett, admits there have been unintended consequences.”
BBC News, 2nd September 2010
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Regina v Hamer [2010] WLR (D) 235
“A fixed penalty notice which had been issued to a defendant pursuant to s 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 was not a conviction, admission of guilt, proof that a crime had been committed, or a stain on the defendant’s character, and therefore could not be regarded as evidence which impugned the character of the defendant or admitted as such.”
WLR Daily, 20th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina v Seaton [2010] EWCA Crim 1980; [2010] WLR (D) 234
“Where it was suggested at trial that a defendant’s or witness’s account was a recent fabrication, he could not, unless he had waived legal professional privilege, be asked whether he had told his lawyer what he now said was the truth, or whether he was willing to waive the privilege. If a defendant gave evidence of what had passed between him and his lawyer, he could not be in breach of his own privilege, but was waiving privilege, although not necessarily waiving it entirely and generally. If a defendant said that he had given his solicitor the account then offered at trial, that would ordinarily mean that he could not be cross-examined about exactly what he had told the solicitor on that topic, but another party could comment upon the fact that the solicitor had not been called to confirm something which, if true, he easily could confirm, if the comment were fair.”
WLR Daily, 20th August 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Lawyer for Victor Nealon says crucial forensic evidence was left untested as surgeon insists wrong man was convicted.”
The Guardian, 22nd August 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The government decides compensation should be paid only to those who wrongly spend time in prison if new evidence has proved them innocent.”
The Guardian, 15th August 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Separated couples will no longer be able to use secretly obtained documents to reveal their spouse’s hidden assets in divorce proceedings, the court of appeal has ruled.”
The Guardian, 30th July 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024