There had been a substantial and lethal fire. The Borough challenged a decision by the defedant to retain to itself the prosecution of possible offenders, saying that the defendant might possibly be itself subject to criticism.
Held: The objection failed. ‘Any prosecution would be grounded firmly in the state of affairs that Southwark had permitted to develop at Lakanal House prior to the fire. Thus, if an allegation of breach of the RRO is to be established, it will have to be based on the extent (if at all) to which Southwark failed to comply with its statutory duty which is free standing of any failures during the fire itself.’ The provision of a course at an earlier date was no promise which could afect this matter.
Sir Brian leveson P QBD, McGowan DBE J
 EWHC 1701 (Admin)
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Fire Rescue and Services Act 2004
England and Wales
Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz CA 16-Jun-2016
The appellant challenged an order made in favour of his wife in proceedings to enforce a contract between them. He alleged that there had been no contract, and bias in the judge. The appellant had not attended to allow cross examination because as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Natural Justice
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.567206