R v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, Ex p Granada Television Ltd; CA (Balcombe, McCowan LJJ, Sir Tasker Watkins) 14 Dec 1994.
The court would be slow to overturn a finding of the BCC, which was the body which Parliament considered appropriate to determine questions of fact and degree, such as whether there had been an infringement of privacy relating to a matter which had once been in the public domain.
Nicholas Chambers QC and Andrew Caldecott QC (Goodman Derrick) for Granada; David Pannick QC (Gregory Rowcliffe & Milners) for the BCC.
Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd and ors; CA (Nourse, Beldam LJJ, Sir Tasker Watkins); 26 Jan 1995.
A person undertaking to clean asbestos with a high-pressure hose did not simply warrant that the asbestos sheets would be clean when he had finished. He undertook to carry out the work with the care and skill necessary to perform the task safely and without causing extensive contamination of the surrounding area. He had to be conversant not only with the operation of the hose but with the risks associated with the work he was carrying out.
David Blunt QC and Charles Cory-Wright (Davies-Lavery, Maidstone) for the appellant; Giles Wingate-Saul QC and Michael Smith (Keogh Ritson, Bolton) for the respondent.
R v Bailey; CA (Crim Div) (Roch LJ, Garland, Gage JJ); 21 Dec 1994.
A trial judge should warn the jury pursuant to s 77 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 that they should exercise a special need for caution before convicting an accused where the case depended substantially on the confession of a mentally handicapped person which was not made in the presence of an independent person. Confessions made to friends do not fall within the ambit of s 77.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, who did not appear below (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Timothy Barnes QC (CPS) for the Crown.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Kuet and ors; CA (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Hobhouse, Morritt LJJ); 19 Dec 1994.
A case is only authority for the decision of law it contains. If the relevant decision was one on a matter of fact, a different court was at liberty to reach a different decision. If the relevant question was assumed, it was not part of the decision and another court was not bound to make the same assumption.
Nicholas Blake QC (E Edwards Son & Noice) for the appellants; Mark Shaw (Treasury Solicitor) for the Home Secretary.Reuse content