Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order: HL 17 Jun 2009

An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order could properly be made, and said that in any event it should be discharged. Held: … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order: HL 17 Jun 2009

Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 16 Nov 2016

The appellant, an Iraqi national had arrived in 2000 as a child, and stayed unlawfully after failure of his asylum claim. He was convicted twice of drugs offences. On release he was considered a low risk of re-offending. He had been in a serious relationship with an English woman since 2005. However the Home Secretary … Continue reading Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 16 Nov 2016

AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust: QBD 26 Mar 2004

Representative claims were made against the respondents, hospitals, pathologists etc with regard to the removal of organs from deceased children without the informed consent of the parents. They claimed under the tort of wrongful interference. Held: Organ removal when a post mortem had been ordered by the coroner was not tortious. In English law there … Continue reading AB and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust: QBD 26 Mar 2004

A and B, Regina v: CACD 23 Apr 1998

The two defendants appealed against sentences for being involved in importation of drugs. They said that they had assisted the police. Held: The Court of Appeal Criminal Division is, in relation to sentencing, a court of review. Its function is to review sentences passed below, and not to conduct a sentencing hearing. Judges: Lord Bingham … Continue reading A and B, Regina v: CACD 23 Apr 1998

Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011

The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as unlawful the respondent’s, at first unpublished, policy introduced in 2006, that by default, those awaiting deportation should be … Continue reading Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011

Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: SC 4 Jul 2018

Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, it would be open to the Court to receive closed material disclosed only to the court and a … Continue reading Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another: SC 4 Jul 2018

Smith v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 15 Nov 2005

The defendant appealed by way of case stated against a decision in his case where he was to be prosecuted for possession of a prohibited weapon, a sawn off shotgun. The court had failed to give him opportunity to make representations as required under the 1998 Act. After committal on an indictable only offence, the … Continue reading Smith v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 15 Nov 2005

Paget, Regina v: CACD 15 Mar 2018

Appeal from sentences for possession of prohibited firearm, and possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and wounding with intent. Citations: [2018] EWCA Crim 635 Links: Bailii Statutes: Firearms Act 1968 5(1)(aba) 16A, Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Sentencing Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.624043

Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General: ChD 7 May 1982

The plaintiffs were Indian Chiefs from Canada. They complained that the 1982 Act which granted independence to Canada, had been passed without their consent, which they said was required. They feared the loss of rights embedded by historical treaties. The Attorney General sought the strike out of the claims. Held: The application for a strike … Continue reading Manuel and Others v Attorney-General; Noltcho and Others v Attorney-General: ChD 7 May 1982

Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1999

The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, they had acted contrac bonos mores. They complained that the … Continue reading Hashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1999

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: CA 16 Mar 2005

The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim. Held: The appeal succeeded. The issue is whether an employer may be vicariously liable under section 3 … Continue reading Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust: CA 16 Mar 2005

Regina v Kansal: CACD 24 Jun 1992

K had been convicted of two counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. He was also convicted of two counts under the Insolvency Act 1986, namely that being a bankrupt (a) he removed property which he was required to deliver up to the Official Receiver or his … Continue reading Regina v Kansal: CACD 24 Jun 1992

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947

Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal procedure, and the applicant sought a … Continue reading Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation: CA 10 Nov 1947

Regina v Kearley (Dec, by his Agent Brian Sharman) (Number 2): HL 21 Jul 1994

An appeal lapses with the death of the appellant even though others may be affected. A statutory right of appeal is a personal right and does not survive the applicant.Rights of appeal die with appellant even after remission by House of Lords. Judges: Lord Jauncey Citations: Independent 19-Jul-1994, Times 21-Jul-1994, Gazette 12-Oct-1994, (1994) 99 Cr … Continue reading Regina v Kearley (Dec, by his Agent Brian Sharman) (Number 2): HL 21 Jul 1994

Regina v British Steel Plc: CACD 31 Dec 1994

British Steel employed two sub-contractors to work in moving a steel tower under their supervision. One platform fell on one of the sub-contractors, killing him. British Steel claimed they had delegated their responsibilities under the Act, and were not criminally liable. Held: A corporate employer cannot evade the strict liability imposed by the legislation by … Continue reading Regina v British Steel Plc: CACD 31 Dec 1994

C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General: ChD 26 May 2006

The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful images of children were found. The searching officer asked the court for directions as to what to do. Held: The … Continue reading C Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General: ChD 26 May 2006

Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB: CA 18 Mar 1998

Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought to co-operate in the resettlement of the … Continue reading Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB: CA 18 Mar 1998

Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004

Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant? Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The overriding concern is that a trial should be fair, and the presumption … Continue reading Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002: HL 14 Oct 2004

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

Fair Coment on Political Activities The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the claimant’s status as a politician. Held: The appeal failed (Lords Hope … Continue reading Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006

Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the National Lottery. They complained that the Limitation Act gave the court … Continue reading A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006

Chaytor and Others, Regina v: SC 1 Dec 2010

The defendants faced trial on charges of false accounting in connection in different ways with their expenses claims whilst serving as members of the House of Commons. They appealed against rejection of their assertion that the court had no jurisdiction to try them because of parliamentary privilege. Held: The appeals were dismissed. Neither Article 9 … Continue reading Chaytor and Others, Regina v: SC 1 Dec 2010

Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited: HL 2 Apr 1998

Chief Constable has a Wide Discretion on Resources Protesters sought to prevent the appellant’s lawful trade exporting live animals. The police provided assistance, but then restricted it, pleading lack of resources. The appellants complained that this infringed their freedom of exports under community law. Held: Police do not have an absolute duty to prevent breaches … Continue reading Regina v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Limited: HL 2 Apr 1998

Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: HL 29 Oct 1998

The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later trial of others. The plaintiff sought damages in defamation. Held: The documents which … Continue reading Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others: HL 29 Oct 1998

Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1. Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion by state agents into the private sphere within which they expected to be … Continue reading Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another: HL 28 Nov 2007

Jackson v Murray and Another: SC 18 Feb 2015

Child not entirely free of responsibility The claimant child, left a school bus and stepped out from behind it into the path of the respondent’s car. She appealed against a finding of 70% contributory negligence. Held: Her appeal succeeded (Majority, Lord Hodge and Lord Wilson dissenting). Her contribution was assessed at 50%. The court rejected … Continue reading Jackson v Murray and Another: SC 18 Feb 2015

Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: HL 31 Mar 1995

The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual intercourse, with a headline ‘Strewth! What’s Harold up to with our Madge?’. The body of the article made … Continue reading Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another: HL 31 Mar 1995

Director of Public Prosecution v Withers: HL 20 Nov 1974

The House was asked to consider whether there existed the crime of a conspiracy to commit a public mischief. Held: There was no such crime, since it was so undefined as to be unfair to any defendant. Although at common law no clear distinction was originally drawn between conspiracies to ‘cheat’ and conspiracies to ‘defraud … Continue reading Director of Public Prosecution v Withers: HL 20 Nov 1974

Regina v Antoine: CACD 29 Apr 1999

Where, on a charge of murder, a defendant asserted his unfitness to plead, it was not possible at the hearing into that suggestion and at the same time, to attempt to decide on a plea of diminished responsibility. If there were other factual . .