James v RSPCA [2011] EWHC 1642 (Admin) – S 18(5) AWA. - statutory interpretation – words must be given their ordinary meaning, but subject to the context of the statutory provision in which they appear.
- meaning of “certifies” – a vets certification under s 18(5) AWA does not have to be in writing.
R v Malik [2011] EWCA Crim 1107 – S 92 TMA. - no conflict between R v Johnstone and R v McCruden.
- s 92(5) TMA requires D to have acted honestly and reasonably believed goods were genuine.
- no general defence of good faith in s 92(5) TMA.
- s 92(5) TMA requires a subjective belief by D and objectively reasonable grounds for him to rely upon.
R (Firth) v Epping Magistrates Court [2011] EWHC 388 (Admin) - S 118(6) CJA 1967 – CPR. - hearsay - admission by an agent.
- court entitled to assume client has given authority for what barrister says on his behalf.
- admissions by D in a case progression form are not self incriminatory or privileged.
- P can rely on what told, on behalf of D in CPR process, is not in dispute.
Latest Articles
Fraudulent Trading: The Four Principles A shortened version of this article was first published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2012) 176 CL&J 27 and 41. The Home Office, in its “Explanatory Notes” to the Fraud Act 2006, sets out four principles which it says are derived from the relevant case law relating to comparable companies legislation. But, are all those principles accurately stated?
Due Diligence and State of Mind: Tesco Revisited Was Lord Diplock correct in saying in Tesco v Nattrass that, to establish a due diligence defence, all a defendant had to do was show that he acted without negligence? First published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2011) 175 CL&J 89 and 177.
Material Averments. Does the prosecution have to prove everything alleged in the information? First published in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly (2010) 174 CL&J 294 and 311. Additional case references in square brackets.
What's popular
R v Malik [2011] EWCA Crim 1107 – S 92 TMA. - no conflict between R v Johnstone and R v McCruden.
- s 92(5) TMA requires D to have acted honestly and reasonably believed goods were genuine.
- no general defence of good faith in s 92(5) TMA.
- s 92(5) TMA requires a subjective belief by D and objectively reasonable grounds for him to rely upon.