Search

The status of enforcement procedures may appear at first glance to be an academic debate with little application to probation practice. Yet the answer to this singular question determines how probation trusts should respond to a variety of court based challenges, which if mishandled has the potential to open the door to litigation against individual trusts. A breach of a community order is not a criminal offence, nor do enforcement proceedings form part of the criminal law. Regulatory statutes such as the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act therefore do not apply. However, English case law has determined that a criminal standard of proof applies to enforcement cases and therefore some elements of the Criminal Procedure Rules do have resonance. Yet there is no right of appeal against a finding of breach and avenues of redress for both offender and the prosecution are limited to general provisions enshrined in English Law. Uncertainty surrounds the admissibility of other evidential areas. The robustness of evidence presented to the court can be improved by relatively modest amendments to practice and forestall possible 'reasonable excuse' defences. However other initiatives derived from general legal practice, are fraught with potential dangers when applied to Community Order enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses various court cases relating to community and criminal justice in Great Britain. The Court of Appeal sentence a mother with two years suspension with supervision and unpaid work requirements for fraud, despite claims of parental and family responsibilities. The Court also upheld a sentence imposed on a father who committed various crimes including burglary and dangerous driving. The issue of aggravating factors in punishing economic crime is also considered by the Court.

The article presents several court cases and discusses the sentencing issues arising from them in Great Britain. One case presented concerns with harassment in the workplace on the basis of race involving a Pakistani man employed at a motorway maintenance company in West Midlands, England. Other cases involve a woman who falsely accused a man of rape, a conflict between two neighbours and the practice of two young men of drawing graffiti on public infrastructures in the Manchester area. The decisions of the British courts on the cases are tackled.

The author reflects on the issue concerning the cost in civil litigation in Great Britain. He states that claimant costs in clinical negligence litigation have been increasing, together with the number of cases being run under conditional fee. Application of the Article 2 to patient suicides: Savage versus South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust is presented.

The article discusses a court case involving a young woman who pleaded not guilty to possession of controlled drugs in Great Britain. It cites that the case offers insights about judicial thought processes and the impact of the pre-sentence report (PSR) upon a sentencer. The woman was living with her partner when police officers found cocaine and cannabis in their house. The judge gave prosecuting and defense counsel a private indication that the witness was not proposing to impose an immediate custodial sentence upon the woman if convicted.

The article offers a report on the Crofton v National Health Service Litigation Authority case. The section examines the correct approach in assessing the cost of care following the Court of Appeal decision on the case. It lists several potential mechanisms for resolving the current complexities, prior to the closure of the DCA consultation.

The article presents several cases related to medical malpractice in Great Britain. The total settlement in the case Davies versus University Hospital of Wales NHS Trust is £279,697 which includes the pain, suffering and loss of annuity. The allegations in the case J Gg versus Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust includes the failure at the time of the left orchidectomy to perform a biopsy of the right testicle with reasonable care.

The article presents several medical negligence cases in Great Britain. The lawsuit Al Hamwi versus Doctor Johnston and N. W. London Hospitals NHS Trust concerned the alleged wrongful birth of the claimant's son on January 30, 2001. It was alleged that, had it not been for negligence by the general practitioner (GP) and the hospital, the mother would have had a termination. The case Thompson versus Bradford found the GP liable for the development of polio of the claimant.

The article focuses on litigation in the healthcare field in Great Britain. It presents the reasons the British National Health Service (NHS) Legal Aid seeks to avoid litigation unless it is essential to establish or protect precedent in the interest of the NHS. It explains the reason the costs of litigation on the individual case are increasing. It compares the case Chester v. Afshar with Donoghue v. Stevenson.

The article analyzes patient safety incidents and describes lessons from litigation for improved patient safety in Great Britain. Between 1867 and 1989, only seven prosecutions of doctors for manslaughter by gross negligence have been identified. One place to look for remediable shortcomings in the healthcare system is in failures in the quality management or clinical governance processes.

The section presents an update on healthcare and law issues in Great Britain. It details how the law should approach the boundary between a reasonable hypothesis and evidence of causation in the case of birth asphyxia as a cause of stroke. Paul Casey has filed a lawsuit against East Lancashire Health Authority in England for negligent delay in identifying a tumour that led to additional disability.

Presents legal issues of concern to the library and information technology sector, compiled in January 2000. Includes British Home Secretary Jack Straw's presentation of the draft bill on freedom of information; Ban on Virginia state employees' access to Internet pornography; Amazon Bookstore Inc.'s lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff alleged clinical negligence against National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust. It is said that the defendant failed to diagnose a scaphiod fracture and misinterpreted and bone X-ray. The claimant's claim for special damages related primarily to a claim for lost earnings.

The article discusses the case, Ndri v Moorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service Trust, in Great Britain. The claimant made negligence allegation against Moorfields, after she developed endopthalmitis and lost eye sight, due to the infected tissue used when she had corneal graft. Her main argument was that Moorfields only used Framycetin for decontamination and not povidone-iodine, that was the practice of all other British eye banks, that's why the bacteria in the tissue was not killed.

The article examines how periodical payments are used and considered for legal and court purposes. It presents some sections in the Civil Procedure Rules 2004 and Practice Direction in Great Britain, which are related to the consideration of periodical payments. The relevance of the duty of counsel in providing financial advice for the Judge is discussed.

The article deals with several high profile court cases in Great Britain involving deaths in custody. The decision of the House of Lords in Middleton v W. Somerset Coroner has assisted to clarify and widen, the scope of an inquiry of Coroner in related incidents. The House of Lords stated that the state's obligation to examine such deaths could be met by widening the scope of the Inquest.