UK: Court of Appeal orders retrial in UK's first HIV criminal transmission case

On 5 May 2004, the UK Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, granted Mohammed Dica's appeal against his October 2003 conviction on two counts of causing grievous bodily harm for reckless transmission of HIV. The court ordered a retrial after determining that the trial judge was wrong to not allow the defendant to present information that the victims had known about his condition and had consented to the risk.     

Betrayal of confidence in the Court of Appeal

In overturning Latham J's judgment in R v Department of Health, Ex Parte Source Informatics Ltd. that anonymisation does not obviate breaching a personal confidence, the Court of Appeal holds that where the duty of confidence arises in equity it does not prohibit the confidant using the confided information without the consent of the confider if this does not treat the confider unfairly (relative to the Court's view of the confider's legitimate interests). We argue that this principle--by bringing fairness to bear on the scope of the duty of confidence rather than on whether a breach of it may be lawful--has no authority in usable precedents; that the Court's interpretation of fairness in applying this principle is, in any event, incompatible with the Data Protection Act 1998 (in part because the Court has too narrow a conception of privacy); that the Court errs in holding that neither anonymisation of personal data nor use of anonymous data falls under the Data Protection Act; and that the Court's insensitivity to the vulnerability that leads patients to disclose information about themselves to health professionals for their treatment, leads it to misidentify the basis of the duty of confidence in such disclosures. The Court of Appeal's reasoning does not clarify the duty of confidence, but virtually abolishes it in the face of competing commercial and research interests.     

Markem v Zipher--the Court of Appeal provides guidance on entitlement proceedings

Legal and practical context. The Markem v Zipher Court of Appealjudgment provides useful guidance on patent entitlement proceedingsand, more generally, on the conduct of litigation. Key points. (i) Patent entitlement. To bring an entitlementaction under sections 8, 12, and 37 a party must invoke a breachof some rule of law. Validity is only relevant in entitlementproceedings where a patent or part of it is clearly and unarguablyinvalid. A claim-by-claim approach is not appropriate in proceedingsunder sections 8, 12, and 37 and ‘invention’ inthese sections refers to information in the specification. Theproper approach to entitlement should be to identify who contributedto the invention and determine whether he has any rights tothe invention. (ii) Litigation generally. A witness should be cross-examinedas to the truthfulness of his evidence whenever a party wishesto challenge that evidence. Where a party has more than onecause of action relating to the same factual background, considerationshould be given to bringing all causes of action in the sameproceedings to avoid a future claim being struck out for abuseof process. Practical significance. This case highlights the importanceof a properly pleaded case and of the ongoing need to reviewthe case strategy throughout proceedings.     

German Constitutional Law in the UK Supreme Court

Liverpool Law Review - The outgoing tide of EU law will be Britain’s most significant constitutional change in recent times. In an era of uncertainties, the UK Supreme Court proved to be a...     

Court of Appeal hears 'huge money' divorce case involving offshore trusts

On 7 March, Mr and Mrs John Charman's ‘huge money’divorce reached the Court of Appeal. Last year insurance magnateJohn Charman was ordered by the High Court to pay his formerwife £48 million in what is thought to be the biggestdivorce award in legal history. (See Trusts & Trustees,Volume 12, Issue 9, November 2006, High-value divorces and trusts,p 22, by James Freeman of Speechly Bircham LLP). James Freeman, family law solicitor at City law firm SpeechlyBircham LLP (tel. 020 7427 6584), commented on the case:

TheCourt of Appeal will rule on how parties with unusually highwealth, including offshore trust assets, should be treated ondivorce.     

Court of Appeal decision on the Design Directive shades Animal from Oakley's designs

The Court of Appeal rejects the claimant's argument that, sincethe government failed properly to implement the Directive 98/71on the legal protection of designs, the transitional provisionson validity in new law of registered designs were partiallyinvalid and that, therefore, their registered design was valid.     

Pettis v. Smith and Braddock. In the Louisiana Court of Appeal

HOLDING: Tube feeding may be withheld or withdrawn from a person in a persistent semi-conscious state even though her living will did not explicitly decline tube feeding, and there is no clear and convincing evidence of her intention to decline tube feeding.     

BC Court of Appeal refuses to reduce sentence for HIV-positive prisoner

On 9 May 2002, the BC Court of Appeal released its decision in a prisoner's sentencing appeal where the Crown and the defence agreed that the original sentence was illegal, and differed in their positions as to the appropriate sentence by only one day. That one day meant the difference between serving the sentence in a provincial jail as opposed to a federal penitentiary.     

Court of Appeal considers burden of proof in breach of confidence cases

The Court of Appeal considered the burden of proof where a copyof a product was allegedly made in breach of confidence andfound that, because the trial judge had not misdirected himself,it was not for the Court of Appeal to look at whether therehad been copying.     

Case report: Court of Appeal clarifies the law on downloading pornography from the Web

In the recent years the law courts had to deal with a considerable number of cases involving child pornography received or downloaded through the Internet.¹ Moreover, there has been a considerable number of appeals involving not only sentencing issues but also the interpretation provided to the making offences under section 1(1) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) since the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Bowden.² The Court of Appeal has now had an opportunity to explain the law. Yaman Akdeniz reports.     

文本、目的和语境——香港终审法院解释方法的连贯性与灵活性

针对香港终审法院有关《基本法》适用的3个判例,着重对文本、目的和语境的解释方法的话语特征和具体应用方式进行可以看出分析,普通法体制下解释方法的连贯性与灵活性使得香港法院仍然从实质上保有基本法适用的相对独立的权力。这值得内地学者进一步关注。