Weekly Digest: 30 January 2018

6KBW

6KBW
30 January 2018

This week’s digest considers two Supreme Court cases and a decision of the Divisional Court. The Supreme Court, in the first case, considered the extent to which a court can rely on information which cannot be disclosed, for public interest reasons, to a person affected by a search and seizure warrant under s. 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the second case, the court considered the correct starting point for calculating a reduction in the term imposed in default for a part payment in respect of a confiscation order. The Divisional Court quashed a decision of Birmingham Coroner not to include investigations into the identity of the perpetrators of the Birmingham pub bombings within the terms of the Inquests.

R (Haralambous) v. Crown Court at St Albans and another [2018] UKSC 1

The judgment, available here, was handed down by Lord Mance on 24.01.18.

The issue on this appeal was the extent to which courts can rely on information which cannot be disclosed to a person affect by a search and seizure warrant issued under s. 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There were five issues on this appeal, each of which received separate treatment. In essence, however, the Supreme Court decided that higher court seized of jurisdiction, either as a result of an appeal or application for judicial review, are entitled to rely on information not disclosed to the person affected by such a warrant or order.

Melanie Cumberland appeared for intervening party, the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

 

R (Gibson) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2018] UKSC 2

The judgment of the court, available here, was handed down by Lord Reed on 24.01.18.

The issue in the appeal was whether the basis for calculating any reduction from a sentence imposed in default of payment under a compensation order was the proportion of the part payment as against the sum at the time the order was made, or the net sum (i.e. including interest) at the time the payment was made. On a true construction of the applicable legislation (s. 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980), the former was the correct basis.

David Perry QC and William Hays appeared for the respondent.

 

R (on the application of Hambleton) v Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests (1974) [2018] EWHC 56 (Admin)

The judgment, which is available here, was handed down by Simon LJ on 26 January 2018.

Each of the 10 claimants was a relative of a person who died in the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. An Inquest was ordered, with Sir Peter Thornton QC, the Coroner, ruling that the Inquests would comply with the procedural requirements of Article 2 of the ECHR and would be held with a jury. The Coroner ruled that investigations into the identity of the suspected perpetrators would not be dealt with as part of the Inquests. The court concluded that the Coroner posed the wrong question when he considered whether the identity of the perpetrators ought to be included within the terms of the Inquests.

 

 

General News

Urgent review of all rape cases called as digital evidence withheld

 

John Worboys’ release subject to legal challenge

 

Julian Assange asks UK court to drop arrest warrant

 

Law Society takes action over cuts to legal aid fees

 

 

 

 

 

 

>