Reviews by the court of the making of non-derogating control orders by the secretary of state, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 s.3, complied with Art.6(1) of ECHR.
|
Control orders that purported to be non-derogating were as a matter of fact derogating control orders. The obligations imposed in those orders amounted a deprivation of liberty contrary to Art.5 of ECHR and the judge had jurisdiction to quash the orders.
|
Criminal Note of Appeal
On 6 November 2003 at the High Court in Edinburgh the appellant was convicted of a charge of breach of the peace and a charge of incitement to murder. The charge of breach of the peace involved the uttering of threats against the appellant's son-in-law, Abdullah Yaseen, and members of his family. On 4 December 2003 the appellant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment from 6 November 2003. The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence. On 8 March 2006 the appeal against conviction was ...
|
It was not an abuse of process for the prosecution to proceed on a charge of murder against a parent when a family court judge had ruled in relation to the child's death that he was unable to say, on the evidence, whether one parent is more likely to have inflicted the injuries than the other, and that it was overall a grave failure of parenting for which both parents must bear responsibility, and it is clear that the responsibility belongs to them alone.
|
It was an abuse of the court’s process for a private prosecution to be brought against D after he had accepted a formal caution by a police officer on the express assurance that, if he agreed to be cautioned, he would not have to go before a criminal court in connection with the offence.
|
D’s continued detention in custody whilst awaiting trial after the court’s refusal to extend the statutory custody time limit due to the prosecution’s failure to act with due diligence and expedition, did not necessarily amount to a breach of D’s right to “trial within a reasonable time” under art.5(3) ECHR, within HRA 1998.
|
Although a voir dire should have been held to consider whether the evidence of a Customs officer should have been excluded in a drug smuggling trial because of a possible breach of PACE Code C, any breach would not have been of such seriousness or substance that fairness would have required the exclusion of the evidence.
|
There was no temporal restriction on the sexual gratification required for an offence to be committed under s.12(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003 where D, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, intentionally caused another person, aged under 16, to watch a third person engaging in or looking at an image of any person engaging in sexual activity.
|
On a trial for murder an alternative verdict of manslaughter should ordinarily be left to the jury if there is evidence to support it, whether the parties wish it left or not.
|
If, at trial, D or his solicitor gives evidence not merely of D’s refusal to answer pre-trial questions on legal advice but also of the grounds on which such advice was given, or if the defence elicit evidence at trial of a statement made by D or his solicitor pre-trial of the grounds on which legal advice had been given to answer no questions, D voluntarily withdraws the veil of privilege which would otherwise protect confidential communications between his legal adviser and himself, and having ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |