Variation of Part IV Permission: The FSA refused an application by Rotton Park to vary its Part IV Permission to add back among other things the regulated activity of accepting deposits.
|
Financial risk: In an attempt to predict the next financial risk following the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the FSA has written to insurance companies. Clive Briault (Managing Director, Retail Markets) of the FSA said: “we have…written to all life insurers asking for details of their illiquid assets and credit derivatives, and their approach to valuing those assets.”
|
Criminal - Suitability of Proof in Mitigation:- On 15 January 2008 at Edinburgh High Court the accused pled guilty under section 76 procedure to two charges of being concerned in the supply of diamorphine and cocaine under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Advocate Depute moved for sentence, tendered a schedule of previous convictions relating to the accused and read out a narrative of the facts which stated inter alia that the accused was seen leaving 15D Powis Place, Aberdee ...
|
Collective Investment Schemes: From 1997 to 2004, Mr Radclyffe acted as an unauthorised broker making false and misleading statements to clients about the management and profits of an illegal collective investment scheme; Mr Radclyffe stole an investment portfolio valued at about £100,000 and dishonestly failed to repay a debt of £20,000 owed to his former partner. He was convicted having pleaded guilty to 15 offences under the Theft Acts, the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Financial Servi ...
|
At the time of being requested to provide a breath specimen D did not raise any medical excuse as to why a specimen could not be provided. At trial the justices rejected D’s defence of medical excuse primarily as it had not been raised earlier, relying on Teape v Godfrey. Held: Teape v Godfrey should no longer be followed. Failing to raise a medical excuse at the time may be a relevant factor, depending on the facts of the case, but it was not in itself fatal.
|
D took a photo of someone and posted it on a website along with defamatory information. The victim did not see the website, and the photo only came to his knowledge when he was shown it by police some time after the original posting. D was convicted under s.4A(1)(b) Public Order Act 1986. It was argued that there was no intent, but this argument was not permitted by the court as it had not been raised before the MC. In any event there was a clear inference that the requisite intent was there. Th ...
|
The court issued a summons against a barrister in relation to an allegation of perverting the course of justice. It has been alleged by a former client, who had unsuccessfully appealed conviction on the grounds of improper pressure by L, that new information had come to light casting doubt on the information placed before the CA. Held: The proceedings were an abuse of process and vexatious, such that no magistrates properly directing themselves could have properly issued the summons. Summons qu ...
|
A police officer made a civil complaint but it was processed by the court (and resulted in the issuing of a criminal summons) due to rigid adherence to pro-forma documents that were of no relevance. The justices later declined jurisdiction as the proper procedure had not been followed. Held: Whilst the court deprecated the improper use of pro-forma documents the rules allowed for flexibility in procedure, it was clear that the police officer had intended to proceed by way of complaint and the or ...
|
A full record of French court proceedings was admissible to prove matters required to be proved under s.241 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
|
No general power under s.45(4), Supreme Court Act 1981 to prohibit publication of defendant’s identity to protect children not concerned in proceedings: An order made under s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 at the end of criminal proceedings to prohibit the naming of a convicted defendant, whose name had not been withheld by the court during the proceedings, in order to protect his children, could not properly be made under either that section or s.45(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |