The appellant (D) appealed against an order for his extradition primarily on the grounds that his extradition would breach art.3 by reason of the prison conditions in the prison in which he would be detained. It was argued that once cogent evidence of possible breaches have been raised, the legal burden of proving an Article 3 case shifts from the claimant to the defendant. That evidence showed that prison conditions in Kenya are so bad a breach of art.3 would result. HELD: The burde ...
|
In considering whether four presentations to insurers had been sufficient to bring subsequent claims within the strictures of a claims notification clause the Court of Appeal partially overturned the first instance judge. In particular the judge should not have rejected insurers’ concession that the second presentation was a limited notification. Although a claims bordereau could not extend a notification it could assist in its interpretation. The accompanying claims bordereau referring to “poss ...
|
The Court Martial Appeal Court made an order under s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 granting anonymity to five soldiers in proceedings against them for conspiracy to defraud, as there was a real and immediate risk to the lives of two of the soldiers if any one of the five was identified.
|
The appellants extradition was sought by an Italian judicial authority pursuant to an EAW. However, they contended that on being returned to Italy there was a real risk that the Italian Government would, in breach of art.3 of the Convention, allow their onward transmission to Tunisia. HELD: In dismissing the appeal, the test for the court to apply was whether, if the appellants were extradited, they would face a real risk of being deported to Tunisia. That risk had to be assessed on the evidence ...
|
Pursuant to s.4 CDA 1998 there is no right of appeal against a decision by the magistrates’ court to vary or discharge an ASBO. The absence of such a right does not violate Art.6 ECHR.
|
Where D had made numerous and persistent phone calls to a small company within a short period of time, and had among other things mentioned the personal details of the recipient, a prima facie case that that course of conduct amounted to harassment was established, and a magistrates' court had accordingly erred in finding there had been no case to answer.
|
Corus’ appeal, against a decision that Qual-Chem’s patent for a process in steelmaking was valid and infringed, was dismissed. The patent was not invalid for added matter because the expression “molten iron” in the original specification meant, in context, the iron with the supernatant slag. Corus’ process did not escape infringement because the words “being tailored”, in the claim relating to the pressure of conveying gas, did cover Corus’ supply of gas from the standard plant supply. It was ...
|
A sentence of life detention with a minimum term of 16 years and 3 months for murder and causing GBH with intent was reduced by 9 months to reflect the fact that D had admitted to manslaughter in his early interview and was not advised to plead guilty until the date of the trial due to issues relating to fitness to plead. Sentences imposed on 4 other offenders arising from the same incident were not varied as the Judge had dealt with sentencing carefully, and any personal mitigation was greatly ...
|
The sentencing provisions in s.269 and sch.21 CJA 2003 were not intended to be applied inflexibly. A man who wished to have his wife murdered, and arranged and agreed to pay for it, should not have a lower minimum term starting point than the one employed to carry out the killing, merely because the facts did not fit the specific CJA high seriousness criteria, especially in circumstances where it was the husband who in fact carried out the murder.
|
Sentences of 1 year and 44 weeks' imprisonment both suspended for 2 years and imposed respectively on two Ds for wounding with intent were not unduly lenient, as there was strong personal mitigation and the sentencing judge had delivered carefully reasoned sentencing remarks.
|
| 1 |