R v Robinson; CA (Crim Div) (Lord Taylor of Gosforth LCJ, Schiemann, Wright JJ); 12 Nov 1993.
Although evidence from a psychiatrist or psychologist might be admissible to show that a confession was unreliable, the Crown could not call a witness of fact and then, without more, call a psychiatrist or psychologist to give reasons why the jury should regard that witness as reliable.
R Alun Jones QC (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; David JM Green (CPS) for the Crown.
Willowgreen Ltd v Smithers; CA (Nourse LJ, Thorpe J); 1 Dec 1993.
A summons was not properly served under CCR Ord 7 r 10(1)(b) if it was merely delivered to an address at which the defendant was never present and at which it did not come to his notice, albeit that it was a place which may well have had a direct and immediate connection with the defendant.
Beverley Lang (Parfitt Cresswell Carnt & Mudie) for the appellant; Anthony Radevsky (Finers) for the respondent.
Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA; ChD (Sir Donald Nicholls V-C); 2 Nov 1993.
There is no principle of general application that unless there is some material available outside that contained in a deponent's affidavit to suggest that in some material respect the affidavit is not accurate, the court should not order cross-examination.
Matthew Collings (Nabarro Nathanson) for the applicant; Richard Sheldon (Lovell White Durrant) for the liquidators.
Re M (minors); CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Butler- Sloss, Simon Brown LJJ); 22 Nov 1993.
A decision to return children wrongfully removed or retained made on an application under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction was a final order not capable of variation save as to implementation. An application to set aside such an order should thus be by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Allan Levy QC and Brian Jubb (Warner & Richardson) for the children; Ian Karsten QC and Stephen Bellamy (Charles Russell) for the father; Andrew Tidbury (Moore & Blatch) for the mother.
Griffin (HMIT) v Craig-Harvey; ChD (Vinelott J); 24 Nov 1993.
An election under the Capital Gains Tax Act 1977, s 101(5) by an individual to treat a second residence as his principal residence in order to claim relief under s 102(1) (now s 222(5) and s223(1) respectively) had to be made within two years of acquisition of one of the properties, not at any time during the period of ownership. However, once a valid election was made it could be varied at any time.
Launcelot Henderson (Inland Revenue Solicitor) for the Crown; David Ewart (Martin & Co) for the taxpayer.Reuse content