header-logo header-logo

30 June 2017
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Pleading

R (on the application of Rahman) v Local Government Election Court [2017] EWHC 1413 (Admin), [2017] All ER (D) 126 (Jun)

The Divisional Court refused the claimant’s application to amend the grounds of his application for judicial review of the decision of the defendant Local Government Election Court, finding him personally guilty, and guilty by his agents, of a number of electoral offences.

There was no reasonable prospect of successful reliance on the presumption of innocence in Art 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as he had never been charged with, or prosecuted for, a criminal offence and there had been no parallel criminal proceedings.

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
back-to-top-scroll