Matrix Judgments & Commentary - Matrix Chambers

Matrix Judgments & Commentary

Matrix’s Legal Support Service produce summaries of cases that involve Matrix members. 

Sentence following conviction of conspiring to cheat the public revenue

R v Dosanjh & Ors [2013] EWCA Crim 2366

The appellants had been convicted of conspiring to cheat the public revenue, and appealed against sentence. The offence of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue retained its established role in the prosecution of revenue cases. It was used to supplement the statutory framework and was recognised as the appropriate charge for the small number of the most serious revenue frauds, where the statutory offences did not adequately reflect the criminality involved and where a sentence at large was more appropriate than one subject to statutory restrictions.

Closed material in the course of the SIAC appeal

L1 v SSHD (2013), SIAC

SIAC will receive closed material in the course of the SIAC appeal because it clearly was the meaning of the Court of Appeal, and the court saw clear advantages to both sides in the capacity of the Commission, to examine the closed material.

Risks to privacy rights did not outweigh open justice in courts-martial

R v Marine A & Ors [2013] EWCA Crim 2367

An order had been made preventing the publication of the names of marines who had been involved in the death of an Afghan insurgent. Held: the name of Marine A should be made public as there was a greater public interest in knowing who he was. The same arguments applied to Marines B & C. The risks to ECHR, art 8 did not outweigh the importance of open justice. The matter was remitted with relation to Marines D & C.

Application of CJEU guidance relating to Aarhus Convention duty to ensure environmental cases “not prohibitively expensive”

R (Edwards & Anor) v Environment Agency & Ors (No 2) [2013] UKSC 78

A reference to the CJEU had been made relating to the obligation under the Aarhus Convention to ensure that environmental cases are “not prohibitively expensive”. The following could be extracted from the CJEU’s ruling, inter alia: the cost must not be objectively unreasonable; the court could consider whether the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success; that a claimant was not deterred from carrying on the proceedings was not determinative.

Employer not required to know employee “disabled” for the purposes of the 1995 Act

Gallop v Newport City Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1583

When seeking guidance from outside clinicians to establish whether an employee was disabled within the meaning of legislation, an employer should pose specific questions directed to the particular circumstances of the putative disability. Where the opinion given was that the employee was not disabled, the employer must not forget that it was he who had to make the factual judgement; he could not simply rubber stamp that opinion.