Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  















Natural Justice - From: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 4 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v Wilson; Regina v Sprason Times, 24 February 1995
24 Feb 1995
CACD

Criminal Practice, Natural Justice
The wife of a prison officer at the prison where the defendant had been remanded, should not be asked to serve as jury member in his trial. There was an apparent bias.


 
 Errington v Wilson (Scotland); OHCS 2-Jun-1995 - Times, 02 June 1995
 
Errington v Wilson [1995] ScotCS CSIH_2; 1995 SC 550; 1995 SLT 1193; 1995 SCLR 875
16 Jun 1995
SCS
Lord President (Hope), Lord Allanbridge and Lord Clyde
Litigation Practice, Natural Justice
The court considered the need for a party to be given opportunity to cross examine witnesses: "In the present case the prejudice which resulted from the refusal to allow cross examination is self evident. There was a difference of opinion between experts on points which were crucial to a sound determination of the questions which the justice had to decide. The result of her refusal to allow cross examination was that the evidence of the second respondents' witnesses could not be challenged in the only manner which was likely to be effective in a case of such difficulty. So I consider that the Lord Ordinary was well founded in his decision that by refusing to allow cross examination in these circumstances the justice disabled herself from reaching a fully informed conclusion upon the evidence. This amounted to a denial of natural justice to the petitioner, as her duty to act fairly in this case required her to permit cross examination of the second respondents' witnesses.
The answer to that question must in the end depend upon the circumstances. In my opinion it is clear from the facts in this case that the justice could not decide whether the cheese failed to comply with food safety requirements without examining the evidence of the expert witnesses. We were not referred in detail to their evidence, but the documents which were shown to us indicate that important questions were raised by the petitioner's expert about the reliability of the evidence of the second respondents' witnesses. The nature of these questions was such that they could not be answered without a detailed study and understanding of the witnesses' evidence. Counsel for the second and third respondents submitted that the point which was being made by these witnesses was a simple one. There were no statutory guidelines, but they said that the matter could be decided by the application of the PHLS Guidelines which did not give rise to any questions of difficulty. But the application of those guidelines to this case was disputed, and the justice could not decide that issue fairly between the parties without examining the detail of their evidence.

In a case of this difficulty there was an obvious risk of unfairness if the second respondents' witnesses were not open to cross examination on the detail of their evidence. There was a risk that defects in that evidence would lie undetected, and that the justice would not be informed about the issues which she had to decide. It is no answer to this point to say that she put both parties on an equal footing by denying to both of them the opportunity of cross examining each other's witnesses. Nor is it an answer to say that the public have an interest in food safety. The consequences for the petitioner and his business were likely to be very serious if the case went against him, and he had a right under the statute to attend and to call witnesses. The issues which the petitioner's representative wished to raise in cross examination were issues on which the petitioner wished to be heard. These were issues which he wished to raise by way of challenge to the evidence of the second respondents' expert witnesses. The unfairness to him lay in the denial to him of the opportunity of opening up these issues by putting questions about them directly to the second respondents' expert witnesses."
[ Bailii ]

 
 Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality); HL 1-Sep-1995 - [1996] AC 593; [1995] UKHL 17; [1996] 1 FCR 205; [1995] 3 WLR 483; [1995] 4 All ER 385; [1995] 2 FLR 687; [1996] Fam Law 8
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.