R v GH (Respondent) – Supreme Court
R v GH (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 24 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 22nd April 2015
Category: law reports
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
McCracken (a protected party by his litigation friend) v Smith (Damian) and others – WLR Daily
‘Where a claimant’s injury had two separate causes, one of which was his own criminal conduct in a joint enterprise with another, amounting to turpitude for the purposes of the defence of ex turpi causa, and one of which was a third party’s negligence, the relationship between the claimant’s turpitude and his negligence claim against the third party was not such as to debar his claim against the defendant in reliance on the principle of ex turpi causa. The correct approach of the court in such cases was to give effect to both causes of the injury by allowing the claimant to claim in negligence against the third party but, if negligence was established, by reducing any recoverable damages in accordance with the principles of contributory negligence so as to reflect the claimant’s own fault and responsibility for the injury.’
WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others (No 2) (Revenue and Customs Commissioners intervening) – WLR Daily
‘The defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is not available to company directors in a claim by the company for conspiracy to defraud the company because the directors’ conduct cannot be attributed to the company in the context of its claim for a breach of the directors’ duties. Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra territorial effect and can be invoked against the directors.’
WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Bryon – WLR Daily
Regina v Bryon [2015] WLR (D) 180
‘While DNA evidence taken from a moveable object was on its own insufficient for a prosecution case to go to a jury, DNA evidence combined with admissible evidence of a previous conviction for a similar offence was a sufficient basis.’
WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (LHS) v First-Tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries and Compensation) – WLR Daily
‘The discount rate determined by the Lord Chancellor under section 1(1) of the Damages Act 1996 was applicable to the quantification of future loss under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 1990.’
WLR Daily, 21st April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Aitken v Director of Public Prosecutions – WLR Daily
Aitken v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] EWHC 1079 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 184
‘The editor of a newspaper did not as a matter of law fall outside the scope of the expression “any person who publishes” for the purposes of the offence of publishing information likely to lead to the identification of a child witness/victim in criminal proceedings, contrary to section 39(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.’
WLR Daily, 23rd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v GH – WLR Daily
Regina v GH [2015] UKSC 24; [2015] WLR (D) 178
‘A person who opened bank accounts which he knew or suspected would then be used by a fraudster to deposit money which the latter hoped to obtain from victims could be charged with entering into an arrangement to facilitate the retention of criminal property, contrary to section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, even though there was no criminal property until after victims’ money had been paid into the accounts.’
WLR Daily, 22nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Moreno v Motor Insurers’ Bureau – WLR Daily
Moreno v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2015] EWHC 1002 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 177
‘The scope of the defendant’s liability to the claimant under regulation 13(2) of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003 was to be determined in accordance with the law of England and Wales and not the law of the country where the accident occurred.’
WLR Daily, 17th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Hunter (Nigel); Regina v Saruwu (Joseph); Regina v Johnstone (Ian); Regina v Walker (Alan); Regina v Lonsdale (Paul) – WLR Daily
‘Only defendants with a good character or deemed to be of effective good character were entitled to a good character direction. Where a defendant had a bad character, a judge was not obliged to give a good character direction; he or she had a discretion.’
WLR Daily, 16th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Abdelmamoud v The Egyptian Association in Great Britain Ltd and others – WLR Daily
‘In order for a non-party to be “directly affected” by a judgment or order for the purpose of CPR r 40.9, it was necessary that some interest capable of recognition by the law was materially and adversely affected by the judgment or order or would be materially and adversely affected by the enforcement of the judgment or order.’
WLR Daily, 17th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Al-Saadoon and others v Secretary of State for Defence – WLR Daily
Al-Saadoon and others v Secretary of State for Defence [2015] EWHC 715 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 168
‘Individuals in certain test cases who had been shot by British forces in Iraq were within the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction, for the purposes of article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, because they had been shot in the course of security operations in which British forces were exercising public powers normally exercised by the Iraqi government and because shooting someone involved the exercise of physical power over that person.
WLR Daily, 17th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Christofi v National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd – WLR Daily
Christofi v National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd [2015] EWHC 986 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 170
‘There was no general power to extend the mandatory two-month time limit for an appeal against the registration of a settlement order by a party not domiciled within the jurisdiction under article 43(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.’
WLR Daily, 14th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Birdseye and another v Roythorne & Co and others – WLR Daily
Birdseye and another v Roythorne & Co and others [2015] EWHC 1003 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 169
‘It remained the case that a person had to establish as a prima facie case that he was a beneficiary before there could be any question of the court requiring a trustee or executor to disclose documents which would be protected by privilege if the applicant were not a beneficiary.’
WLR Daily, 15th April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar – WLR Daily
Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015] EWCA Civ 330; [2015] WLR (D) 167
‘The proprietor of a registered charge which turned out to have been a forged disposition was entitled to payment by way of indemnity under Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002 in circumstances where the registered proprietor and rightful owner of the property was in actual occupation at the date of the disposition.’
WLR Daily, 1st April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
R (on the application of Evans) and another (Respondents) v Attorney General (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 26th March 2015
In the matter of S (A Child) – Supreme Court
In the matter of S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 25th April 2015
