Criminal Procedure - Failure by Crown to move for
Three accused were indicted in relation to contraventions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 6 September 2005 at a Preliminary Hearing accused 2 and 3 had partial pleas accepted by the Crown. The first accused had his case continued to trial. The Advocate Depute did not move for sentence against 2 and 3 at that time but rather asked the court to continue the case against 2 and 3 to the first accused's trial. The question arose whether there was an 'implied' motion for sentence by the A.D. or, m ...
|
A sign which consisted of a technically efficacious shape presented in a stylized form did not ‘consist exclusively’ of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result, since the surplus of form over function was aesthetically significant. However, the hearing officer was held to have been right to find that the sign was not inherently distinctive and had not acquired distinctiveness.
|
On appeal, an order reducing the specification of goods for a registered mark was narrowed further, so that “computer software and computer programs” was qualified by “for use in or with banking or financial telecommunications systems”. It was held that an order reducing a specification of goods should identify and define not particular examples of goods for which there had been genuine use, but the particular categories of goods which they should realistically be taken to exemplify.
|
The FSA found that the applicant was not fit and proper by reason in particular of his alleged inability and unwillingness to complete his company's pension review, his dealing with clients, his repeated inconsistencies in his dealings with the regulator, his failure to comply with decisions of the Financial Ombudsman Service and his trading while unauthorised and uninsured. The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was not wholly credible and on the basis of their concerns about his p ...
|
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 ...
|
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.
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |