Decided Cases of the UK Supreme Court - A Discussion Thread?

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html

Worn out by the shouty, high-stakes world of SCOTUS? Why not kick back for a while in the chill environment of the UK's own little-train-that-could?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQObpGrXAAAx0oT.jpg

****
OK, so I admit this might be one of my stranger & more obtuse obsessions - but perhaps still one that a few people here might share? I suspect it might be at least of passing interest to some of the regulars in the rolling UK politics thread.

Latest judgement is a nice fun, easy-to-follow one for anyone taking a first peek at things:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0247.html

This will be one of the things that I'll miss being connected to the most if we ever get independence tbh (obviously taking into account that they have extremely limited jurisdiction in relation to Scottish criminal cases anyway, but still...).

In the interests of transparency, should say that my interest in this is a lay rather than professional one - but the involvement/opinions of anyone with a professional interest would be very welcome!

Thought this “Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs” one was interesting. Unanimously dismissed.

Whilst there is no doubt as to the importance of the rules against torture and the use of torture-tainted evidence, these rules do not imply a duty on states to inquire into the possible reliance on torture-tainted evidence by other states, acting alone or as part of an international organisation

Seems like the UK is coming out strongly as not really in favour of torture

Jack Straw the shadiest Foreign Secretary for a while, and this seems to be a little bit of closing ranks around him.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/18/joint-enterprise-law-wrongly-interpreted-for-30-years-court-rules

Interesting! Could have huge implications for street-violence-related murder cases.

^That Guardian article on the Jogee judgement is considerably better than the one on the BBC website, which tbh comes across like they didn't even bother to read the press summary properly.

I'm still digesting the judgement but it appears that it might be of slightly more limited impact than some commentators have suggested. The crux of the principle that the SC have overturned seems to be summarised in Para 2 of the judgement :

If two people set out to commit an offence
(crime A), and in the course of that joint enterprise one of them (D1) commits
another offence (crime B), the second person (D2) is guilty as an accessory to crime
B if he had foreseen the possibility that D1 might act as he did. D2’s foresight of
that possibility plus his continuation in the enterprise to commit crime A were held
sufficient in law to bring crime B within the scope of the conduct for which he is
criminally liable, whether or not he intended it.

If my crude understanding is correct, what the SC are saying is that now instead intention needs to be proven on the part of D2 in order for D2 to be criminally liable for crime B. Foresight can be taken as strong evidence of intention, but it should be a matter for juries to decide if intention is proven, taking into account the evidence regarding foresight along with any other relevant evidence - as opposed to previous situation where judges were required to direct juries that if D2's foresight is proven then they must find D2 guilty of Crime B (so effectively treating foresight & intention as legally equivalent).
But the important thing to bear in mind is that the change would only apply to cases involving the 'Crime B occurs during the commission of Crime A' scenario, not just any case involving a principal and an accessory/accessories.

Still feels weird to me seeing Carter-Ruck pop up outside the context of Private Eye:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0080-judgment.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0080-press-summary.pdf

After nearly a fortnight wrestling with the judgement on the Named Person scheme, I still couldn't tell you whether or not I think it's the right decision:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html

Regardless, it's now starting to look likely the SG will make bigger changes to the legislation than are strictly necessary to meet the court's guidance on ECHR compliance :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37009351

Judgement on the bedroom tax cases was handed down yesterday and it's... not exactly straightforward:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0125-press-summary.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0125-judgment.pdf

hmm

Article 50 appeal streaming live:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-37976580
or
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Poor dears, they don't like being in the news you know.

this NI abortion ruling is just a disgrace, no? https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0220-judgment.pdf