A County Court Judge has a broad discretion as regards the decision whether or not to transfer a case to the High Court. The Judge who had been dealing with the case was best placed to make the decision on transfer.
|
Where D sought to appeal against his conviction for murder many years after the original trial on the ground of diminished responsibility and the Crown sought to contest the admissibility of the new evidence, counsel was under a duty to warn D that a retrial was likely and to make it clear in the grounds of appeal that D had been so advised.
|
Neither youth nor limited intellectual capacity necessarily leads to a breach of Article 6. What is crucial is whether the tribunal hearing the case is able to adapt its procedures so that D can effectively participate in the proceedings.
|
Action of Interdict and Damages - Car Clamping:
Two vehicles belonging to the pursuer were clamped and then removed from the place where they had been parked in Stirling. The case came before the sheriff for debate on the defenders pleas to the relevancy of the action. Having heard parties the sheriff by interlocutor dated 4 April 2005 dismissed the action. The pursuer has appealed against that interlocutor. The grounds of appeal do not challenge the the reasoning which led the sheriff to conclude that the pursuers pleadings are irrelevant an ...
|
Guidance as to the factors to be taken into consideration by a judge when deciding whether to admit in evidence a prejudicial statement made in D’s presence and to which D, by his conduct, was said to have acquiesced.
|
Brief reasons given by the FPC for ICO’s were held to be inadequate and a re-hearing was ordered. However the court made ICO's pending the re-hearing as given the concerns about the Mother's parenting it was possible that the children would be returned to their mother's care only to be subsequently removed.
|
Evidence of a dual criminal purpose had to be shown for a conviction for capital murder under s.2(1)(d) OAPA 1864 in Jamaica.
|
Where the High Court remitted a question to the DJ under s.104(1)(b) Extradition Act 2003 but the judge came to the same conclusion as he did at the original extradition hearing, s.104(7) deemed the second decision of the DJ a decision of the High Court.
|
Costs of disciplinary tribunal and appeal may be varied: There was nothing in r.14 of the Visitors Rules 1992 to suggest that an order, in respect of costs, of a disciplinary tribunal whose decision was being appealed could not be varied by the Visitors to the Inns of Court. The court had jurisdiction to deal with costs in respect of the tribunal hearing and costs of the appeal hearing.
|
On an application for the variation of a freezing order made in support of a claim to recover property obtained through unlawful conduct, the court should apply principles similar to those applicable to proprietary claims, but with the allowance that the depletion of the property frozen by the order would not be recoverable from D.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |