A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, before the UK Supreme Court. This case concerned whether a court order granting anonymity to a convicted and deported foreign national sex offender could remain in place, notwithstanding objections from BBC (Scotland). In answering the question, the Court articulated what it referred to as the common law principle of open justice, which is the focus of this case note. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
The Common

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, Supreme Court. This case concerned whether a court order granting anonymity to a convicted and deported foreign national sex offender could remain in place, notwithstanding objections from BBC (Scotland). In answering the question, the Court articulated what it referred to as the common law principle of open justice, which is the focus of this case note. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The Problem of the Non-justiciability of Religious Defamations

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-52
Author(s):  
Peter Smith
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Religious Doctrine ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

English courts have historically been wary of deciding cases that rest on contested findings of fact about the practices and doctrines of religions. This is particularly true in defamation cases. However, the recent case of Shergill and others v Khaira and others [2014] UKSC 33 in the UK Supreme Court has narrowed the principle of non-justiciability on the grounds of subject matter. Defamation cases such as Blake v Associated Newspapers Limited [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB) have treated religious doctrine and practice as matters not justiciable per se, even if a determination is essential for the exercise of private or public law rights and obligations. The Supreme Court indicated in Khaira that it may be appropriate for courts to treat such disputes as justiciable. The common law, domestic statute and the European Convention on Human Rights protect the right to reputation, and Khaira indicates that it is time that defamation claims resting on disputes about religious doctrine and practice were entertained by the courts to a much greater extent than recent cases have allowed. However, the judgment has left open the possibility of some religious disputes still being non-justiciable.

scholarly journals Crown act of state and detention in Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-133
Author(s):  
Jane Rooney
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

The Serdar Mohammed litigation signalled a decisive change in judicial attitude towards scrutiny of extraterritorial executive action in armed conflict. The most significant indicator of a change in judicial attitude was the reinstatement of the act of state doctrine in the private law claim in tort. Act of state bars tort claims against the Crown when the Crown acts outside of its territory. The UK Supreme Court characterised act of state as a non-justiciability doctrine. The article argues that the UK Supreme Court exercised extreme deference in its adjudication of the act of state in the private law claim. This deference was then mirrored in the reasoning employed in the public law claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, departing from international and domestic standards on detention in armed conflict.

Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, before the UK Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Article 5

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, UK Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

SHORN-OFF COMPLICITY

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Dyson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Council Decision ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Common Purpose ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Additional Form

CRIMINAL complicity has been dramatically changed by the combined decisions of the UK Supreme Court and the Privy Council in Jogee; Ruddock [2016] UKSC 8; [2016] UKPC 7; [2016] 2 W.L.R. 681. At least since the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, it has been settled that a person (S) who has intentionally assisted or encouraged another (P) to commit a crime has been liable to be tried, convicted, and punished as if S was a principal. For decades, there has also been a much-debated, additional form of complicity where the accomplice was “parasitically” liable for further crimes committed by P beyond the scope of a common criminal purpose shared by S and P. For that kind of liability, the accomplice need not have assisted or encouraged the further crime but need only have foreseen that it was a possible incident of the common purpose. The effect of Jogee and Ruddock is that this further form of complicity, first recognised explicitly in the Privy Council decision of Chan Wing-Siu [1985] A.C. 168 and later endorsed by the House of Lords in Powell; English [1999] 1 A.C. 1, has been shorn off the criminal law. As a result, Chan Wing-Siu directions will no longer be given to juries.

R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right ◽  
Lord Chancellor ◽  
Right Of Access

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, Supreme Court. This case considers whether the fees applicants were required to pay to access the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeals Tribunal interfered with their ability to access justice. The UKSC articulated the right of access to justice as deriving from the common law. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Transplanting Irrationality from Public to Private Law: Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Himsworth
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Discretionary Powers

For many years, similarities have been noticed between the motivations for, and the methods of, controlling the exercise of discretionary powers on the one hand, in public law and, on the other hand, in contract law. There has, however, been much disagreement about how far the two processes should aligned, and whether the grounds of review in public law should be extended into the contractual domain. In Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17, the UK Supreme Court sought a high degree of alignment through the adoption, in a contractual dispute, of public law standards of reasonableness. This article offers a critique of the Court's arguments in the case and its consequences for contract law.

No Certainty and No Justice: The Counterintuitive Effects of Enforcing “No Oral Modification Clauses”

Global Jurist ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Tayar
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Us States ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Uniform Policy ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Abstract The legal effect of the “No Oral Modification clause” (“NOM clause”) has been described by the UK Supreme Court as a “truly fundamental issue in the law of contract”. Courts in Australia, common law Canada, and many US states had held that the NOM clause, which prescribes that an agreement may not be amended save in writing, is unenforceable. However, in a recent decision, the UK Supreme Court unanimously held that it is enforceable. This Essay seeks to demonstrate that a uniform policy of non-enforcement of the NOM clause is more consistent with the basic principles of contract law and will likely yield greater certainty and justice in the long run.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document