Jurisprudence in UK Law

He argues that it is the consequence of the express provision that questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the Court seised of the case. By way of example, if the procedural law of the chosen forum imposed a 12 month limitation period, it does not seem to me that this could displace the 2 year period of limitation laid down by Article 29 of the Convention.

I will assume that Mr. Blackburn is right in what he says on those matters. Negotiations are still in progress for us to join the Common Market. Even if a treaty is signed, it is elementary that these Courts take no notice of treaties as such. We take no notice of treaties until they are embodied in laws enacted by Parliament, and then only to the extent that Parliament tells us. That was settled in a case about a treaty between the Queen of England and the Emporer of China.

I consider that Kennedy LJ in Bramley correctly doubted the decision in Fitzpatrick, as set out above, that a search is rendered unlawful if there is any transgression, in the sense that an item is taken that falls outside the scope of the warrant. I have already cited the relevant passage from Bramley above, and the reasoning set out therein seems to me to be entirely persuasive.

In exercising his discretion whether to admit the evidence of an undercover officer, some, but not an exhaustive list, of the factors that the judge may take into account are as follows: Was the officer acting as an agent provocateur in the sense that he was enticing the defendant to commit an offence he would not otherwise have committed? How active or passive was the officer's role in obtaining the evidence?

We are not going to lay down any final conclusions about this case. When a new point of this kind has to be developed, it is better if it is developed slowly. We shall look at the circumstances of this case and see how the statutory provisions work out in relation to it.

A failure to comply with an order can be dealt with by an application to the court for a finding of contempt and, if necessary, a further mandatory order which may contain an indication of what might happen should there be any further failure to comply. Adverse findings coupled with what would probably be an order to pay indemnity costs should suffice since it is to be expected that a public body would not deliberately flout an order of the court.

He was influenced in this regard by what in recent years has become accepted sentencing policy in this type of case, that is that with persons like the present appellant, who seem to be incapable of leaving motor vehicles alone, to impose a period of disqualification which will extend for a substantial period after their release from prison may well, and in many cases certainly will, invite the offender to commit further offences in relation to motor vehicles. He was influenced in this regard by what in recent years has become accepted sentencing policy in this type of case, that is that with persons like the present appellant, who seem to be incapable of leaving motor vehicles alone, to impose a period of disqualification which will extend for a substantial period after their release from prison may well, and in many cases certainly will, invite the offender to commit further offences in relation to motor vehicles.