Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-25-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. For the reasons he gives, with which I agree, I too would allow these appeals. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and for the reasons he gives, with which I am in full agreement, I, too, would allow these appeals. LORD WALKER OF GESTINGTHORPE My Lords, 3. I am in full agreement with the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, which I have had the advantage of reading in draft. I too would allow these appeals. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 4. For the reasons given in the opinion of my noble and learned friend, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, with which I entirely agree, I too would allow these appeals and restore the decisions of the first instance judge in each case. LORD NEUBERGER OF ABBOTSBURY ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-25-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinions of all my noble and learned friends. In the result, I reach the same conclusion as my noble and learned friend Baroness Hale of Richmond, for whose exposition of the issues I also am grateful. But, for reasons given by my noble and learned friends Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, I reach this conclusion with fewer misgivings than she expresses. 2. Viewed through the eyes of the appellants, the Home Secretary’s family policy seems harsh: they have suffered the misfortune of losing their parents and now suffer the additional misfortune of losing a benefit which they would have enjoyed had they arrived here with their parents. But viewed through the eyes of the Home Secretary, the policy looks very different: he faced a formidable administrative problem caused by the difficulty, delay and expense of removing families, and the solution was to grant an indulgenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-25-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The appellant, a Kosovar, arrived in this country from Kosovo, via Macedonia, on 2 September 1999. He was then aged 13. He claimed asylum four days later. It was refused on 27 April 2004, a delay of over four and a half years. Conditions in Kosovo having changed, the appellant now has no ground for claiming asylum. But had his application been decided before 10 December 2003, when he became eighteen and so ceased to be an unaccompanied minor, he would, depending on the date of the decision, under the policies in force, from time to time, have been granted exceptional leave to remain in this country for four years or until his eighteenth birthday, with at least the chance of obtaining indefinite leave to remain thereafter. The respondent Secretary of State now seeks to remove him to Kosovo. The appellant resists removal, relying on his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private and family life...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-25-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am in full agreement with it and would, for the reasons he gives, make the order he proposes. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I agree with it, and for the reason he gives I would allow the appeal and make the order he proposes. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 3. I, too, have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The reasons given by my noble and learned friend for allowing the appeal are, in my opinion, wholly persuasive and I am in full agreement with them. I would make the order that he proposes. BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND My Lords, 4. I am in full agreement with the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-25-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I am in full agreement with it, and would for the reasons which he gives allow the appeal and make the order which he proposes. LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and leaned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal and make the order that he proposes. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 3. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion on this appeal prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and am in complete agreement with the reasons he has given for allowing this appeal. My astonishment that the case should have had to come this far for the, as it seems to me, obvious conclusion that the appellant and her four year old child should be permitted to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)195; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)16
R. Kantha Rao, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Sessions Case No. 291 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and no separate sentence being awarded for the offence under Section 324 of IPC on the ground that life imprisonment has been awarded for the major offence.2. The gravamen of charge against the appellant is that he voluntarily caused the death of S. Jaibunnisa and S. Khader Basha, the deceased 1 and 2 by stabbing them with knife and also voluntarily caused injuries to his wife Shaik Hussain Bi (P.W-5) and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and 324 of IPC respectively.3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows:The deceased No. 1 S. Jaibunnisa, is the wife of the deceased No. 2 S. Khade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-19-2008
Reported in : ILR2008KAR3395; 2008(6)KarLJ33; ILR2008(3)Kar3395; 2008(6)KLJ33; 2008(3)KCCR1975; 2008(5)AIRKarR233; AIR2008NOC2523(DB)
ORDERDeepak Verma, J.1. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned senior counsel with Sri. D. Vijayakumar appeared for the petitioners and Sri. Shohit H. Shetty, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No. 1 and Sri. H.S. Lingaraj, learned Counsel appeared for respondent No. 2. Arguments heard. Record perused.2. The case has a long and chequered history, but to deal with the same, it is not required to give unnecessary details. However, short details of the case, are mentioned hereinbelow:Husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of minor girl, petitioner No. 2, Sri. H.R. Basappa, was working as Manager in APCO Concrete Block Industries, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore. His salary was more than Rs. 12,00,000/- per annum plus other fringed benefits. Respondent No. 1 is M/s. Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Bank') carrying on its Banking operation through out India. In order to allure prospective customers, so as to enable them to have Banking operations with the Bank, it offer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jun-19-2008
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4268
1. Heard argument from the parties, hearing is concluded and the judgment is as follows:2. Order of conviction under Section 302/201, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed against the accused/ appellant by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S. T. Case No. 1/384 of 1998-97 is under challenge.3. Sarat Chandra Chhotray (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and Prasanta Kumar Chhotray (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') are two amongst four brothers. The occurrence took place in the night of 3-6-1997. By then deceased was serving as a Teacher in the district of Koraput and was trying for his transfer to Bhubaneswar. He had come to his native place during the summer vacation and was staying at Puri together with the accused and other inmates. On 3-6-1997 deceased together with the accused went to Bhubaneswar to pursue the matter relating to transfer. They went in a Yamaha motor-cycle bearing Registration No. OSF-4325. On the following day, i.e., on 4-6-199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-18-2008
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. At about 9.30 am on New Year’s Day 2002, towards the end of an all-night New Year’s Eve party held in a flat in Hackney, a shot was fired which killed two men. The appellant Iain Davis was in due course extradited from the United States, indicted on two counts of murder, tried at the Central Criminal Court before His Honour Judge Paget QC and a jury and, on 25 May 2004, convicted on both counts. He appeals to the House against the dismissal of his appeal against conviction by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division on 19 May 2006: [2006] EWCA Crim 1155, [2006] 1 WLR 3130. 2. At trial the appellant admitted that he had been at the party but claimed that he had left before the shooting and denied having been the gunman. Appearances were against him. He had gone to the United States on a false passport shortly after the murders. When questioned by the police after his return to this country he had declined to give any answers. In evidence he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-18-2008
LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. The question in this case is whether it is consistent with Convention rights as defined in section 1(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a couple to be excluded from consideration as adoptive parents of a child on the ground only that they are not married. The woman is the natural mother of the child. The man is not the father but he and the woman have been living together for some years and treat the child as a member of the family. There is some evidence before the House about the nature of their relationship but there have been no findings by the court because the application has been rejected in limine on the grounds that they are not married to each other. 2. The legal obstacle to their adoption application is article 14 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (SI 1987/2203(NI 22)): (1) An adoption order shall not be made on the application of more than one person except in the circumstances specified in paragraph[s] (2) … (2) An adoption ord...
Tag this Judgment!