‘Whilst Standard Disclosure (under CPR 31) remains in force, the Disclosure Pilot has provided a more flexible menu of disclosure options for the majority of cases in the Business and Property Courts. There is a degree of overlap between CPR 31 and the Pilot Scheme, but there are some significant divergences. One of those is paragraph 18 of the Pilot Scheme, which allows variations of pre-existing orders for Extended Disclosure. The scope of the court’s jurisdiction under paragraph 18 of the Disclosure Pilot was central to this appeal.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th January 2021
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Parties in disagreement over how to proceed with disclosure under the pilot should not stop talking or engage in “point-scoring correspondence”, a judge has warned.’
Litigation Futures, 28th October 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘MPs have called on the government to legalise e-scooters in the UK and advertise them to car drivers as a greener alternative for short journeys.’
The Guardian, 2nd October 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Commercial litigators have vented their frustration – and in some cases anger – with the disclosure pilot in the Business and Property Courts, and changes to its rules have been put forward as a result of this and other feedback.’
Litigation Futures, 24th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Business and Property Courts must “get a handle” on why most solicitors believe the disclosure pilot is not producing cost savings, the professor monitoring its progress has said.’
Litigation Futures, 9th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (handed down on 11 August 2020) was an appeal from what is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Court of Appeal in Bridges, this system constitutes an interference with Article 8 rights which is not such as is in accordance with the law, but which (critically) would be proportionate if a sufficiently narrow local policy were framed.’
UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Campaigners are calling for South Wales police and other forces to stop using facial recognition technology after the court of appeal ruled that its use breached privacy rights and broke equalities law.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Domestic Abuse bill which is making its way through the legislative process and which was delayed as a result of the calling of the general election (and the prorogation of Parliament) has reached the report stage in the commons this week. It is expected to be amended to incorporate the reforms to the legislation recommended by an expert panel and which will implement those recommendations and commence a pilot scheme to trial them.’
Becket Chambers, 1st July 2020
Source: becket-chambers.co.uk
‘Judges will be empowered to intervene in cases of domestic abuse to prevent the complainant from being re-victimised by aggressive lines of questioning, as part of a new raft of legal changes announced today.’
The Guardian, 25th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Government’s announcement that eleven local authorities across England would be taking part in voter ID pilots for the 2019 local elections was controversial. There is a heated debate as to whether citizens should have to provide photo identification before receiving their ballot at elections. For some, it is a straight-forward measure to avoid the risk of fraud. For others, it is a policy that, by design or inadvertently, leads to the disenfranchisement of certain groups.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 9th June 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The disclosure pilot in the Business and Property Courts is likely to be extended until the end of 2021, it has emerged.’
Litigation Futures, 19th May 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Following the completion of a pilot of the Alcohol Abstinence and Monitoring Requirement (AAMR), section 76 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 will come into force on 19 May 2020 (UKSI no.478 of 2020). Section 76 inserts a new section 212A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“CJA 2003”), which empowers the court to impose an AAMR as a requirement of a community order or suspended sentence order.’
5SAH, 12th May 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘A pilot scheme has begun to restart jury trials in the UK after they were halted due to the coronavirus pandemic.’
BBC News, 18th May 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A company must disclose documents held by its subsidiaries and which it controls, the High Court has ruled, in a case handled under the disclosure pilot.’
Litigation Futures, 6th April 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024