Practice Family proceedings. The Family Division dismissed a mother's appeal against the variation of a consent order, rejecting the mother's arguments both in respect of an apparent shortfall in school fees and in respect of costs.
Criminal law Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division allowed the defendants' appeals against conviction for the offence of cruelty to a person under 16 in circumstances where it was held that medical expert evidence relating to metaphyseal fractures sustained by the victim had not been probative of the prosecution's case and should not have been admitted into evidence at the trial. The convictions were quashed and there was no order for re-trial.
Police Powers. The Divisional Court, in allowing the claimant's judicial review application to challenge a caution given to her in relation to an offence of assault by beating on her partner, held that, on a proper assessment of the facts, no further action had been the obvious outcome. It followed that the case was one of those rare cases in which the court ought to intervene.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had erred in making an order granting staying contact to the father, since the judge had failed to state his reasons for rejecting recommendations of a CAFCASS officer that professional psychological help would be of benefit in dealing with the mother's anxieties at the prospect of staying contact being ordered.
Conflict of laws Foreign judgment. The Family Division dismissed a mother's appeal against the registration of a Romanian order pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) 2201-2003 (concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility) (Brussels II Revised). The court held that the combination of documents and information provided by the father very strongly suggested that the mother had been well aware of what was going on in the Romanian courts and she had had every opportunity to put her case before the judges there.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, in granting orders preventing the defendants from harassing the claimant wife and children of Abu Qatada within 500m of their home and restraining the defendants from disclosing personal matters in relation to the claimants, held, amongst other things, that freedom of thought, conscience and religion was awarded subject to limitations provided by law, for example, in the . Further, the balancing exercise as between arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights leaned towards the making of the non-disclosure order.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, refused the parent's appeal against an order made pursuant to s34(4) of the permitting the local authority to refuse contact with their baby which had been removed immediately after birth. The court held that a decision had to be taken there and then in emergency situations and it was unthinkable that it could interfere where the judge had had regard to the relevant factors.
Family proceedings Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division allowed a mother's application to relocate her children to Australia, in circumstances where the court held that the impact of refusing the application, if favourable to the father, would bear far more heavily on the mother than the other way round.
Immigration Patrial. The appellant had been refused a certificate of entitlement to a right of abode in the UK as the daughter of a British citizen (her father). Her elder sisters had been granted such certificates, but her mother had also been refused. The appellant's appeals had been dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, was presented with fresh evidence regarding the appellant's legitimacy and her parents' knowledge that their polygamous marriage was not valid under English law. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had not considered a statutory presumption regarding legitimacy that might have assisted the appellant's appeal. Consequently, the court remitted the matter for redetermination.
Care proceedings Non-accidental injuries. The Supreme Court held that a finding of a real possibility that a person had harmed a child in the past was not, by itself, sufficient to establish the likelihood that that person would cause harm to another child in the future. Accordingly, by itself, an earlier finding of harm could not be relied upon to establish a likelihood of harm in the future for the purposes of s31 of the .