header-logo header-logo

18 February 2022
Issue: 7967 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 18 February 2022

Criminal law

Pwr v Director of Public Prosecutions; Akdogan and another v Director of ­Public Prosecutions [2022] UKSC 2, [2022] All ER (D) 84 (Jan)

The Supreme Court (the court) held that s 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000), which provided that it was a criminal offence for a person in a public place to carry or display an article ‘in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation’, was a strict liability offence. Further, the court ruled that s 13(1) was compatible with art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the Divisional Court’s decision, dismissing their appeal by way of case stated, concerning their conviction for an offence under TA 2000 s 13(1), namely carrying a flag of the Kurdistan Workers Party (an organisation proscribed under TA 2000) during a demonstration against the perceived actions of the Turkish state in north-eastern Syria.


Judicial review

R

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll