Dockets
Sources in this library
Latest documents
-
Case: Issue. Case ID: 2020/0103
Issues:(1) Whether the term "proceedings" should be confined to court proceedings in the context of considering reductions to defendants’ sentences when they plead guilty to a crime at an early stage. (2) Whether such reductions to sentences may be reduced where the defendant is caught "red handed".Facts:Owen Maughan and John Maughan were charged together and separately with a series of offences committed between 13 July 2015 and 25 July 2016. They pleaded guilty to these offences when they were formally charged on 14 September 2017. Both men had previous convictions and the pre-sentence report stated that they both presented a high likelihood of reoffending. On 21 December 2017, both men were sentenced at Belfast Crown Court to imprisonment for fourteen years (seven years in custody and seven years on licence). Their sentences were somewhat reduced because they had pleaded guilty at an early stage. However, they were not afforded the maximum discount on their sentences because did not co-operate with the police on arrest and because, for certain of the offences, they were either caught "red handed" or the evidence against them was overwhelming. Both appealed their sentences to the Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) on the basis that they were manifestly excessive (Owen Maughan) and wrong in principle (John Maughan). The Court dismissed both appeals. Owen Maughan now appeals to the Supreme Court.
-
Case: Issue. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0135
Issues:The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether the 'two child limit', a provision of primary legislation which restricts payment of amounts of subsistence benefit for children to the first two children in a family, is incompatible with the Appellants' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.Facts:The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 imposed a limit of two on the number of children in respect of whom child tax credit (and its replacement, universal credit) is payable. The limit applies, with a few exceptions, to all children born after 6 April 2017, when the new law came into force.The Appellants are members of families affected by this two child limit. SC lives with her three youngest children, for whom she is solely responsible. Her youngest child was born on 11 July 2017 (and therefore after the two child limit took effect). CB has five children, the youngest of whom was born on 19 April 2017 (just after the new legislation came into force). The High Court dismissed the Appellants' claims, and the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
Case: Issue. Case ID: UKSC 2019/0147
Issues:(1) What is the test that the court must apply to determine the lawfulness of policy issued by HM Government in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers who claim to be children. (2) Whether the Home Department’s policy relating to an initial assessment of the age of asylum-seekers claiming to be children is lawful. Facts:BF is a national of Eritrea and an asylum seeker who presented himself to police claiming that he was 16 years old. The immigration officers who saw him believed him to be substantially over 18, describing his physical appearance as that of an adult in his mid-twenties. He had previously claimed asylum in Italy, where he had given his age as 26. BF was held in immigration detention pending his return to Italy and continued to claim that he was a minor. Two formal age assessments found him to be an adult, but a third found him to be 16. Save in limited circumstances, it is unlawful for the Home Department to detain an unaccompanied child. BF applied for judicial review of the decision to detain him on the ground that the Home Department’s policy, which provided that a person claiming to be a child could be treated as an adult if immigration officers considered that their physical appearance very strongly suggested that they are significantly over 18, is unlawful. BF’s judicial review claim was rejected by the Upper Tribunal. The Court of Appeal allowed BF’s appeal by a majority. The SSHD appeals the Court of Appeal’s decision.
- Case: CR-2022-003117. Venture House London Limited
- Case: QB-2017-000248. Denis Watt v Dynamo and Motor Repairs (Stockton) Limited (As A Successor In Title To J.W..) and another
- Case: QB-2017-005735. Alberto Siqueira v Bill Pottinger
- Case: CR-2012-006706. Internet Assist Limited
- Case: CR-2022-003091. Neath Working Men's Social Club Limited
- Case: QB-2018-004658. Rita Ghazaryan v Churchill Car Insurance
- Case: QB-2017-004578. William Leslie Foster v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council
