Case Summaries: Monday Law Report 4 December 2000

The Independent (London, England), December 4, 2000 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Case Summaries: Monday Law Report 4 December 2000

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


Omoruyi v Secretary of State for the Home Department; CA (Simon Brown, Waller LJJ, Forbes J) 12 Oct 2000.

An applicant for asylum who claimed to be suffering persecution for reasons of religion had to show some element of conscious discrimination against him because of his religious beliefs. Accordingly, the claim of the applicant was bound to fail, since his fear of persecution by members of a cult in his home country arose not because of his religious beliefs, but because he had defied the members of the cult.

Nicholas Blake QC, J Collins (Michael Reason) for the applicant; A Underwood (Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.


Dalziel v Donald; QBD (Robert Moxton-Brown QC as a deputy High Court judge) 20 Oct 2000.

In proceedings brought under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 it was appropriate, when calculating the appropriate multiplier for future dependency, to reduce the multiplier where there was clear evidence that a dependent's marriage might have failed, as where the deceased had been involved in an extra-marital affair.

Colin Nixon (Amery Parkes, Birmingham) for the claimant; Howard Elgot (Whittles, Leeds) for the defendant.


R v D; CA, Crim Div (Mantell LJ, Holman J, the Recorder of Liverpool) 23 Oct 2000.

Since there was no definition of the term "persistent offender" in the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, it should be interpreted on the facts of each particular case. It could be applied to a defendant with no previous convictions who had committed a number of crimes within a short period of time, but was wrongly applied to a defendant convicted of affray with previous convictions of a different nature.

Steven Evans (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.


Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd; QBD (Gray J) 24 Oct 2000.

A defendant to defamation proceedings would not be protected by qualified privilege on the basis that the claimant was of bad character because the Secretary of State had made an exclusion order against him.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Case Summaries: Monday Law Report 4 December 2000


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?