Click the case name for better results:

Interfact Ltd v Liverpool City Council: Admn 29 Jun 2010

The claimant had been convicted in 2005 of an offence under the 1984 Act. It later became clear that the Act failed properly to implement a European Directive and was unenforceable. The company now sought leave to appeal out of time. The case was heard along with the case of Budimir. Citations: [2010] EWHC 1604 … Continue reading Interfact Ltd v Liverpool City Council: Admn 29 Jun 2010

Regina v Video Appeals Committee of British Board of Film Classification (ex parte British Board of Film Classification): Admn 16 May 2000

Where a video might expose certain possible viewers of it to harm because of its content, that factor could be allowed for in the decision whether to grant or withhold a certificate, but could not lead to an automatic refusal of such a certificate. The inability to quantify the number of minors who might see … Continue reading Regina v Video Appeals Committee of British Board of Film Classification (ex parte British Board of Film Classification): Admn 16 May 2000

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

Wingrove v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1996

The applicant had been refused a certification certificate for his video ‘Visions of Ecstasy’ on the basis that it infringed the criminal law of blasphemy. The Court found that the offence was prescribed by law and served the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others. Held: The provision of a system which would allow … Continue reading Wingrove v The United Kingdom: ECHR 25 Nov 1996

Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent London Borough Council: QBD 16 Feb 1993

An employee’s actual knowledge of and information about the age of a video purchaser could properly be imputed to his employer company. Gazette 07-Apr-1993, Times 16-Feb-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1037 Video Recordings Act 1984 11(1) 11(2)(b) England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Interfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005 The defendants, … Continue reading Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent London Borough Council: QBD 16 Feb 1993

Regina v Budimir and Another: CACD 29 Jun 2010

The defendants sought leave to appeal out of time saying that their convictions had been under the 1984 Act which was later found to have been unenforceable for failure to comply with notification requirements under European law. The 1984 Act had had to be repealed and re-enacted in the 2010 Act. Held: Leave was refused. … Continue reading Regina v Budimir and Another: CACD 29 Jun 2010

law-bytes

Please note (June 2010: that these law-bytes will soon (but not very soon and slowly) be re-organised, and re-posted within the main swarb.co.uk law-blog. This will allow much more powerful crosslinking for users between the various pages. All the existing pages will be left in place, but only the replacements will be updated. Eventually all … Continue reading law-bytes

Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn): HL 15 Dec 2000

A DNA sample had been wrongfully retained after the suspect had been acquitted, and the sample had been used in a later investigation to identify him. A subsequent sample had been taken, and the result of that second test had been used as evidence at trial. The defendant objected, and claimed that it had been … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1999) (Lynn): HL 15 Dec 2000

Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 19 Dec 2012

The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently detailed, and that the police had acted in breach of his article 8 rights in obtaining evidence by surveillance since … Continue reading Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 19 Dec 2012