Law Report: Case Summaries

Article excerpt

THE following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.


Re C (a minor: secure accommodation); FD (Hollis J); 1 July 1994.

The court had jurisdiction to make a secure accommodation order under s 25 of the Children Act 1989 where a child had been granted bail with a condition of residence as directed by the local authority, even though s 20(1) of the Act and reg 6 of the Child (Secure Accommodation) Regulations 1991 made no reference to the Bail Act.

Paula Clements (Hart Brown & Co, Farnham) for the child; Susan Shackleford (Jonathan Jessup, Kingston upon Thames) for Surrey County Council.


R v Investors' Compensation Scheme Ltd, ex p Bowden & anr; CA (Balcombe, Rose LJJ, Hutchison J); 24 June 1994.

The common law principles of compensation, subject to the exceptions identified in the Financial Services (Compensation of Investors) Rule 1990, were to be applied by the board of the Investors' Compensation Scheme (ICS) in assessing compensation paid to individual investors who had suffered loss from financial advisers engaged in investment business, and it followed that the board did not have a general discretion to award less than the legally recoverable costs. In this case, those principles required there to be no deduction for sums paid to investors in accordance with the particular transaction they had entered and which were subsequently disbursed by them. Furthermore, the rules required fairness to the particular investor and the board's decision to limit to pounds 500 the compensation for professional fees was not rational because no ceiling of any amount should have been imposed.

Nicholas Strauss QC, Neil Kitchener (Barnett Sampson) for the appellants; Michael Beloff QC, Richard McManus (Wilde Sapte) for the ICS.


R v Campbell; CA (Cr Div) (Stuart-Smith LJ, Kay, Dyson JJ); 30 June 1994.

In respect of a confession made by a mentally handicapped person in the absence of an appropriate adult, the test as to whether the trial judge should warn the jury, pursuant to s 77 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, of the special need for caution, was whether the case for the Crown was substantially strong without it.

Kieran Coonan QC, Christina Lambert (B M Birnberg & Co) for the appellant; Graham Boal QC, Martin Heslop (CPS) for the Crown.

Guilty plea

R v Eriemo; CA (Cr Div) (Glidewell LJ, Blofeld, Buxton JJ); 18 July 1994.

A plea of guilty was an admission of facts with which a defendant was charged. Where such an admission followed the refusal by the trial judge, in the exercise of his discretion, to sever the indictment, and to have a co-defendant tried separately, the defendant had no right of appeal against his conviction.

Peter Binder (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellant; Paul Clark (CPS) for the Crown.


Freemantle v R; PC (Lords Templeman, Jauncey, Lloyd and Nolan, Sir Vincent Floissac); 27 June 1994.

The fact that the trial judge failed to give the jury the requisite general warning on the dangers of convicting a defendant on uncorroborated visual identification evidence did not mean that the appellate court was debarred from applying the proviso to s 14(1) of the Jamaican Judicature (Appellate Jurisdiction) Act {identical to the proviso to s 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968} and dismissing the appeal, in exceptional circumstances such as the instant case, where the visual identification was of exceptionally good quality. …