header-logo header-logo

03 January 2008
Issue: 7302 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Criminal Litigation

Gault v UK (App No 1271/05) [2007] All ER (D) 297 (Nov)

The applicant had been remanded in custody pending re-trial on a murder charge. She ar­gued that this was a violation of Art 5(3) of the ECHR.

HELD The question when a trial or re-trial will occur is not a relevant reason for withholding bail for the purposes of Art 5(3). Art 5 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pend­ing trial. In this case, the applicant had been convicted by a jury; the Court of Appeal had quashed the conviction but ordered an immedi­ate re-trial.

The Court of Appeal could be said to have concluded that there was still a case for the applicant to answer and one sufficient to warrant a re-trial. However, the persistence of reasonable suspicion is not in itself a sufficient reason for the refusal of bail. There was no basis for inferring that the Court of Appeal had con­cluded that there was a greater risk of the ap­plicant’s absconding before the re-trial than had been the case before the previous trials (when bail has been granted). It was significant that the prosecution had not opposed bail even though it had been open to it to do so.

It followed that the reasons given by the Court of Appeal could not be considered relevant and sufficient reasons for the purposes of Art 5(3).

Issue: 7302 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll