|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 2000 |
|
|
Court reduced excessive theft sentence to three years, accepting serious illness as mitigation but not domestic hardship.
Criminal law — Sentencing — Excessive sentence on review; statutory maximum reserved for worst instances; monetary value and low maxima; serious illness as mitigation; domestic hardship not ordinarily mitigating.
|
31 August 2000 |
|
High Court reduced excessive sentences, emphasising prompt section 15 review and guilty-plea mitigation.
Criminal procedure — Review jurisdiction of High Court (Courts Act ss.25–26; Crim. Proc. & Ev. Code ss.15, 362) — Duty to transmit and confirm certain sentences — Timeous review required — Consequences of delay on detention — Sentencing on review — guilty plea mitigation — concerted action as aggravation
|
31 August 2000 |
|
|
28 August 2000 |
|
Whether reporting suspected theft to police amounts to procuring arrest and whether aggravated damages require specific pleading.
Civil liability — False imprisonment — Distinction between making a charge (procuring arrest) and giving information; burden of proof on claimant
Defamation — Pleading must match evidence
Damages — Special and aggravated damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved
|
24 August 2000 |
|
Interlocutory mandatory injunction refused where contract terms and facts are disputed and damages are adequate.
Contract for sale of goods – interlocutory mandatory injunction – high threshold: unusually strong case and high degree of assurance – disputed facts on affidavits – equity/clean hands – specific performance not appropriate – damages adequate.
|
24 August 2000 |
|
Turquand rule and apparent authority defeated an injunction where a family company failed to observe corporate formalities.
Company law — director’s apparent authority — Turquand rule — enforcement of security — interlocutory injunction — non‑compliance with Companies Act formalities.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Confirmed 42-month burglary sentence applying six-year starting point reduced for mitigation; registrar's delay in confirmation criticized.
Criminal law — Burglary sentencing — Six-year starting point — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Confirmation review — Registrar's duty and delays — s15(4) Criminal Procedure & Evidence Code — Remission under Prison Act.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Plea recording on multiple counts must be separate but curable; fines for felonies are generally inappropriate and default terms are capped by statute.
Criminal procedure – Plea procedure on multiple counts – joint plea curable under ss 353 and 362; Sentencing – fines for felonies generally inappropriate; default imprisonment limits – s.29 (1989 amendment) caps default term at three months for fines K100–K1000; Delay in review may preclude alteration of sentence.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Delay by court registry in setting down review matters can frustrate the High Court’s power to enhance subordinate court sentences.
Criminal procedure — High Court review powers (Courts Act ss.25–26; Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code ss.15, 362) — power to alter or increase subordinate court sentences — duty to transmit and set down records timeously — consequences of delay — review cannot convert acquittal into conviction.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
High Court confirmed 18‑month theft sentence, stressing review powers, timely confirmation, and limits after prisoner’s release.
Criminal procedure – Review and confirmation of subordinate court sentences (s.15 CP&E Code) – High Court powers under s.26 Courts Act and s.362 CP&E Code – timeliness of review and limits where prisoner released (s.15(4), s.107 Prison Act) – sentencing: value of property, guilty plea mitigation, first‑offender status.
|
21 August 2000 |
|
Court set aside default judgment against a non-existent company; third party lacked standing under Order 12 but had interest under Practice Note 12/1/11.
Civil procedure – Order 12 Rules 6 and 8 – leave to give notice of intention to defend – limited to a defendant; Practice Note 12/1/11 – setting aside default judgments obtained against non-existent companies; locus standi of interested third parties; costs.
|
15 August 2000 |
|
Failure to give a full Turnbull warning was cured by strong fingerprint and caution-statement corroboration, so the appeal was dismissed.
Criminal law – visual identification – Turnbull warning required where identification is central; fingerprint and caution statement as independent corroboration; missing exhibits and safety of conviction.
|
14 August 2000 |
|
The State’s failure to bring the applicant before a court within 48 hours violated the Constitution; habeas corpus relief and bail were granted.
Constitutional law – Right to be brought before a court within 48 hours (s.42(2)(b)) – Habeas corpus – Continuous breach – No administrative excuse absent lawful limitation – Remand v. bail: balancing interest of justice and liberty.
|
8 August 2000 |
|
A short custodial sentence for a young first‑time offender in a non-violent shopbreaking was appropriate and confirmed.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Review of sentence – Breaking into a building and committing a felony – First offender and youth – Guilty plea as mitigation – Role of general deterrence and commonplaceness in sentencing.
|
3 August 2000 |
|
Sentence for breaking and entering with alleged theft reduced due to minimal trespass, overstated loss, and s15(4) detention safeguards.
Criminal law – breaking into building and committing felony (s311 Penal Code) – sentencing depends on extent of trespass, violence or damage, and value of property; evidentiary doubts can warrant reduction of sentence. Criminal procedure – s15(4) Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code – warrant of commitment treated as for statutory period pending High Court confirmation; magistrate must specify period; prison authorities must not detain beyond statutory period without High Court confirmation
|
3 August 2000 |
|
Court confirmed eight‑month sentence for theft by servant, stressing sentencing guidelines, breach of trust relevance, and timely review procedures.
Criminal law — theft by servant; sentencing — breach of trust; sentencing guidelines (Missiri); Prison Act s.107 rebate; review procedure and Registrar’s duty to list promptly.
|
3 August 2000 |