You are here

Bloomsburry Family law

Law Brief

Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Selby District Council

A person in receipt of housing benefit who moved into residential accommodation with an intention to return to his rented home if the accommodation was unsuitable, and who subsequently decided to stay in the care home, was entitled to receive housing benefit under reg 5(7B) and 5 (7C) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 until the expiry of the notice period on the rented property, despite his intention to return home having ceased earlier.

Januzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Hamid v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Gaafar v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Mohammed v Secretary of State for the Home

The question of whether it would be unduly harsh for an asylum-seeker to be expected to live in a place of relocation within the country of his nationality was not to be decided by considering whether the quality of life in the place of relocation met the basic norms of civil, political and socio-economic human rights. The decision-maker, taking into account all the relevant circumstances pertaining to the applicant and his country of origin, had to decide whether it was reasonable to expect the applicant to relocate or whether it was unduly harsh to expect him to do so.

R (Bushell) v Newcastle upon Tyne Licensing Justices [2006] UKHL 7

In the circumstances, it was appropriate to determine an appeal against a decision to quash a justices’ licence granted by way of special removal, even though the appellant could no longer take advantage of the licence as a result of the repeal of the Licensing Act 1964, since the appellant’s outstanding claim for damages pursuant to the respondent’s cross-undertaking was dependent on the result of the appeal. Consequently, in determining the appeal, the special removal provisions in s 15 of the the Licensing Act 1964 should not have been construed narrowly by the Court of Appeal, the conditions had been satisfied and the justices had had jurisdiction to grant it.

DPP v Milton

A judge had taken into account irrelevant matters in deciding whether the appellant police officer was guilty of dangerous driving or speeding. Excessive speed alone was not sufficient to found a conviction for dangerous driving as the question of speed had to be considered in the context of all the circumstances of a case.

R v Staines [2006] EWCA Crim 15

There was no reason to quash a discretionary life sentence with a hospital and limitation direction under s 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983, and to substitute for it a hospital order under s 37 and s 41 of the Act where the offender, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility and had been diagnosed with a pathological borderline personality disorder, had been later diagnosed with a mental illness also. A s 45A order did not, by its terms, preclude its application in cases where the offender suffered from both, and gave a better measure of control without impeding the offender’s treatment.

R v Stevens

Where there had been a breach of an anti-social behaviour order, the court had the power to impose a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum sentence that could have been imposed for the offence that the behaviour order was seeking to prohibit. Accordingly, a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment was permissible where the offence that had given rise to the breach of the behaviour order had carried a maximum sentence of a fine.

Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust v Hamuth

Where there was a bona fide dispute as to whether a person claiming to be an executor had a valid claim to act as such because of a dispute over the validity of the will appointing her then, as the deceased had died in hospital and a NHS trust was lawfully in possession of the body, the trust would decide as to the body’s disposal.

Pages

Opsray