header-logo header-logo

26 September 2014
Issue: 7623 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Sentence

R (on the application of Hamill) v Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court [2014] EWHC 2799 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 59 (Aug)

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant court’s dismissal of his appeal, under s 91C of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, against the Chief Constable’s refusal to relieve him of notification obligations.

The Divisional Court gave guidance on the nature of the appeal to the magistrates’ court under s 91E of the Act. It then found that the defendant had erred in law in dismissing the appeal. The matter was remitted to a freshly constituted court, as it could not be concluded that there had been only one decision which the defendant could have reached.

 

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll