Archive
<December 2006>
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567
Monthly
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
 
Case Summaries Up To December 2006
Select Your Region: Scotland  England and Wales  UK  Northern Ireland  Europe  All
Selected Region: All
By Law Brief Publishing on 18/12/2006 12:00 AM
This case details how the guideline case of R v Cooksley should be applied to cases of causing death by dangerous driving, or driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs, given that the statutory maximums for those offences have now been increased.
By Law Brief Publishing on 13/12/2006 12:00 AM
The law allowed for the release of long-term prisoners to be determined by the parole board, however, in the case of prisoners subject to deportation the decision was one for the Home Sec. Held: Such a policy was discriminatory.
By Stephen Moore on 13/12/2006 12:00 AM
Criminal -Appeal
Appeal by way of stated case against a conviction after trial on a charge that “..... on a date between 01 April 2005 and 8 April 2005, exact date unknown, …you …. did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner approach Kirsty Spence and Paula Mitchell, both c/o Strathclyde Police, seize said Kirsty Spence by the hand, refuse to release her hand, utter sexually explicit comments, invite said Kirsty Spence and Paula Mitchell to attend at a house with you, place them in a state of fear and alarm and ...
By Stephen Moore on 12/12/2006 12:00 AM
Note of Appeal Against Conviction
The appellant was convicted at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on 18 November 2004 by a majority verdict of the jury on the charge that on 5 February 2004 at Swan Crescent, Gorebridge, he assaulted Daryl Neil Holgate by striking him on the body with a knife to his injury. He claimed he was acting in self-defence, he having been assaulted by the complainer. On 10 January 2005 he was sentenced to 3 years probation and 200 hours of unpaid work in the community. The 14 grounds of appeal amounted to the sher ...
By Stephen Moore on 07/12/2006 12:00 AM
Criminal Note of Appeal re section 71(2) and devol
The appellant was indicted, along with two co-accused, in the Sheriff Court at Dunoon on a charge of assault to severe injury, permanent disfigurement and permanent impairment. At a first diet she gave notice by minute of a preliminary issue in respect of an objection to the admissibility of certain evidence. By her minute she contended that a line of evidence pertaining to her identification by the complainer at a specified identification parade should not be admitted in evidence. The sheriff r ...
By Law Brief Publishing on 05/12/2006 12:00 AM
Both judges and advocates had a duty to ensure that the court only passed lawful sentences. The duty, as far as advocates was concerned, rested on both prosecution and defence. The Court invited the Sentencing Guidelines Council to produce a schedule outlining relevant sentencing guidelines.
By Law Brief Publishing on 05/12/2006 12:00 AM
The CA, having found that there was an appearance of bias in the lower court, was able to substitute its own decision. If D had withdrawn instructions from his solicitors there could not be said to be unfairness in the proceedings.
By Law Brief Publishing on 05/12/2006 12:00 AM
The standard of proof to be met before a statement could be admitted under s.116(2)(b) CJA 2003 was beyond reasonable doubt. Even if D did not object to a statement being admitted the court must satisfy the statutory criteria before doing so.
By Law Brief Publishing on 30/11/2006 12:00 AM
For the purposes of s10 Criminal Damage Act 1971, badgers did not constitute property. Nor were badgers property at common law. Therefore a person who destroyed badger traps could not rely upon s.5 of the Act, or the common law defence of protection of property.
By Euan A. Dow on 29/11/2006 12:00 AM
Petition for an Order under section 1 of the Vexat
Here the petitioner sought an order under section 1 on the basis that:- " ... no legal proceedings shall be instituted by the respondent in the Court of Session, Sheriff Court or any other inferior court unless the respondent first obtains leave of a judge sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session, having satisfied such a judge that such legal proceedings are not vexatious and that there is a prima facie ground for such proceedings in terms of section 1 of the Vexatious Actions (Scotlan ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
This content is made available by CaseCheck Limited under a Creative Commons Licence  |  Terms Of Use