header-logo header-logo

31 July 2015
Issue: 7663 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights

Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] UKSC 49, [2015] All ER (D) 229 (Jul)

The appellant appealed against her conviction for wilfully failing to answer questions, contrary to para 18 of Sch 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Sch 7). The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that powers in Sch 7 did not breach Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Insofar as there had been deprivation of liberty, it had not breached Art 5 of the Convention. Further, there had been neither a wrongful denial of the common law privilege against self-incrimination nor a breach of Art 6 of the Convention.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll