QBD (Admin) (Sir Wyn Williams)
4 May 2017
A police officer who genuinely and reasonably believed that she was authorised by court order to arrest an individual for breaching an injunction, and who genuinely and reasonably believed that the individual was in breach of the injunction, was acting in the execution of her duty. Therefore, although the injunction and power of arrest had erroneously cited repealed statutory provisions, when the individual assaulted her he could be convicted of assaulting an officer in the execution of her duty.
QBD (Admin) (Morris J)
20 February 2017
The claim of a prisoner detained in a hospital that the Lord Chancellor’s powers under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 were to be interpreted so as to give effect to a right to free legal representation by a lawyer of his choice in tribunal proceedings under ECHR art.5(4), art.6 or art.8 was unarguable.
CA (Civ Div) (Jackson LJ, McCombe LJ)
28 October 2016
The detention of a young offender for an additional 11 days after the expiry of his sentence had not breached his rights under ECHR art.5(1). Although the award of additional days had been quashed after the days had been served, it had been imposed in accordance with a judicial procedure prescribed by law and had remained lawful until the date of its quashing.
QBD (Admin) (Gross LJ, Andrews J)
18 October 2016
Offences of permitting an animal to suffer unnecessarily and of failing to take such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent such suffering, pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 s.4, were not strict liability offences but required at least an element of culpability.
QBD (Admin) (Cranston J)
5 August 2016
When a designated person appealed against an asset-freezing order under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 s.26, the Treasury had to justify the order it had made. The court concluded that designation had been justified to prevent the appellant providing financial assistance to a proscribed organisation, but the renewal of the designation was not justified when, by the time of renewal, different circumstances applied.
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, Lang J, Dove J)
26 April 2016
A sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for conspiring to traffic five Hungarian individuals into the UK with intent to exploit them, contrary to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 s.4(1), was not unduly lenient. The offender was not a prime mover in the trafficking scheme and undue weight had not been given to his personal mitigation.
SC (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lord Clarke JSC, Lord Hughes JSC, Lord Toulson JSC, Lord Hodge JSC)
20 April 2016
The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 s.2(1) provided compensation only for physical damage to property and not for consequential losses such as loss of profits or rent.
QBD (Coulson J)
15 April 2016
Although corporate manslaughter charges against an NHS trust had been dismissed on the basis of no case to answer, the trust was unsuccessful in seeking to recover its costs incurred in defending the proceedings. Since the testimony of the Crown’s expert, although unconvincing, was not plainly wrong in a way that should have been obvious to the Crown, the decision to prosecute could not be regarded as improper.
CA (Crim Div) (Sharp LJ, William Davis J, Judge Stockdale)
22 March 2016
The Court of Appeal rejected a contention that, in order for the actus reus of an offence contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000 s.12(1)(a) to be made out, there had to be an invitation by a defendant to others to join him in providing practical or tangible support to a proscribed organisation. On a proper interpretation of that provision, it had to be determined whether a defendant knowingly used words which in fact invited support for that organisation. That broader interpretation was not incompatible with rights under the ECHR or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
DC (Lloyd Jones LJ, Holroyde J)
11 February 2016
A Crown Court had erred in finding that a mechanically propelled invalid carriage was a motor vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5. A man who had driven a mobility scooter on a dual carriageway while drunk had, however, been properly convicted under s.5 where he had been using the scooter in a manner which did not comply with the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988 reg.4. The scooter was not therefore excluded from being defined as a motor vehicle as provided for by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 s.20.