R v Central criminal Court, ex p S and P; QBD (Div Ct) (Kennedy LJ, Sullivan J) 1 Oct 1998.
WHEN CARRYING out the balancing exercise necessary to determine whether to lift an order imposing reporting restrictions made under s 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in respect of defendants who had been found guilty but who had appealed against conviction, the age of the defendants was not the only factor to be considered, nor was their welfare. After a conviction, it might be appropriate for a court to place greater weight on the interests of the public in knowing as much as possible about what had happened in court and knowing the identity of those who had committed the crimes.
John Cooper (Fisher Meredith) for S; Paul Mendelle (Hornby Ackroyd & Levy for P; Gavin Millar (Crocker Oswald Hickson) for the South London Press as interested party.
Clarke (HMIT) v Trustees of the British Pension Scheme and ors; Ch D (Lightman J) 14 Oct 1998.
THE TRUSTEES of three pension schemes, who received commissions in return for sub-underwriting share issues, were not entitled to the exemption from income tax for approved pension schemes under s 592(3) of the Taxes Act 1988, nor from the exemption from the additional rate of tax payable by trustees on certain income under s 686(2)(c) of the Act, because the sub-underwriting activity amounted to trading.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC, SG, Timothy Brennan (Solr, Inland Revenue) for the Crown; Michael Flesch QC, Felicity Cullen (Maxwell Batley) for the taxpayers.
R v Chichester and District Justices, ex p Crowther; QBD (Div Ct) (Brooke LJ, Sedley J) 14 Oct 1998.
A PERSON who had been made the subject of a confiscation order had been convicted of serious crimes and sentenced by a court of law. The onus was on the defendant to pay the amount confiscated, and, since there was no statutory limitation period relevant to the enforcement of such an order, the defendant could not claim that the failure of the prosecuting authorities to enforce it for a period of four years could amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Darren Whitehead (Henchleys, Littlehampton) for the applicant; Kennedy Talbot (Solr, C & E) for the Crown.
Hobin v Douglas; CA (Roch, Swinton Thomas, Schiemann LJJ) 19 Oct 1998.
WHEN DETERMINING interest on an award of damages it was open to a judge to depart from the rough and ready approach normally adopted by the courts following the case of Jefford v Gee  1 All ER 1202, and to use an actuarial calculation where that method would produce a more accurate and fairer figure.
Kenneth Hamer, Toby Riley-Smith (Collins, Watford) for Hobin; Raymond Machell QC, Mark Turner QC (Lace Mawer, Manchester) for Douglas.
Bishop v Berkshire Health Authority; QBD (Douglas Brown J) 20 Oct 1998.
A PLAINTIFF was entitled to resile from an intention to seek the court's approval for acceptance of a payment into court following an adjournment for consideration of a structured settlement, and was within her rights to reconsider accepting the offer which had been made, following the change in the law relating to the assessment of damages as a result of the decision in Wells v Wells  3 All ER 481.
James Watson (Boyes Turner Burrows) for the plaintiff; Adrian Whitfield QC (Beachcroft Stanleys) for the defendant.
R v Snaresbrook Crown Court and anor, ex p Director of the Serious Fraud Office; QBD (Div Ct) (Brooke LJ, Sedley J) 16 Oct 1998.
WHERE THE Crown Court dismissed transfer charges under s 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 on the ground that the law was other than that on which the prosecution case was predicated, the Crown should challenge that decision by way of judicial review rather than by means of a voluntary bill of indictment, since it was only in judicial review proceedings that the defendant had a right to be heard.
D. Anthony Evans QC, Christopher Kinch (Serious Fraud Office) for the applicant; John Goldring QC, Gareth Rees (Kingsley Napley) for the respondents.Reuse content