LAW REPORT: CASE SUMMARIES

Click to follow
The Independent Online
The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.

Children Re M (a minor); CA (Butler-Sloss, Hoffmann LJJ, Sir Tasker Watkins); 10 Nov 1994.

The principles in s 1 of the Children Act 1989, requiring a court to give paramount consideration to the welfare of a child, did not apply to an application by a local authority under s 25 to keep the child in secure accommodation. The welfare of the child was relevant but not paramount.

David Hershman (Young & Lee, Birmingham) for the guardian ad litem; Stephen Cobb (Birmingham City Solicitor) for the local authority.

Colour R v George; CA (Cr Div) (Roch LJ, Garland, Ebsworth JJ); 3 Nov 1994.

Save in a case which was racially motivated it was inappropriate for a judge to comment on the colour of the defendants he was sentencing, even if well intentioned, as that might leave a lingering feeling that their colour had affected the length of sentence that he had imposed.

Constance Briscoe (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.

Disqualification Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Gray; CA (Neill, Hoffmann, Henry LJJ); 10 Nov 1994.

In considering whether to make an order under s 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the court should restrict itself to evidence of the director's misconduct relied upon by the Secretary of State in applying for the order.

The court could not look at other evidence showing that, despite the director's past shortcomings, he was unlikely to offend again and was therefore no longer unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the court's duty to disqualify a director whose conduct had shown him to be unfit.

Roger Kaye QC, Malcolm Davis-White (Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State; Edward Bannister QC, Robin Hollington (Field Seymour Parkes) for the director.

Drugs R v Lilley; CA (Cr Div) (Lord Taylor CJ, Potts, Sachs JJ); 11 Oct 1994.

The fact that there was a disparity between prison sentences of six months in Holland and five years in England did not benefit a defendant sentenced in England for assisting in the UK in the trafficking of herbal cannabis into Holland contrary to s 20 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Anthony Berry QC (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant.

Comments