Law Report: Case Summaries

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

Ancient monument

R v Jackson; CA (Crim Div) (Farquharson LJ, Pill, Laws JJ); 5 May 1994.

The principle of legal certainty in relation to criminal offences was a fundamental principle of the law. The precise extent of the scheduled monument sought to be protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Act 1979 should be capable of being ascertained from the material documents, which should ordinarily include the notice and accompanying map and criminal liability under s 2 of the 1979 Act for executing work resulting in damage to a scheduled monument could not depend on speculation or inquiry.

Andrew Lindquist (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Andrew Howarth (CPS) for the Crown.

Employment

Greenaway Harrison Ltd v Wiles; EAT; 26 April 1994.

Where an employer proposed to change an employee's shift hours so that the employee would be unable to continue working, there had been an anticipatory breach of contract, and the employee had been constructively dismissed withion s 5(2)(c) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the dismissal was unfair.

David Griffiths-Jones (Lovell White Durrant) for the employer; Lynnette Warren (Evans Butler Wade) for the employee.

Arson

R v Mir and anor; CA (Crim Div) (Farquharson LJ, McKinnon, Laws JJ); 22 April 1994.

On a charge of conspiracy to destroy or damage premises by fire being reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered, the correct direction on recklessness was to apply a subjective test to the requirements so that the jury were satisfied that, in the circumstances of the present case, the defendant knew and agreed with others that the gas cooker inside premises would be turned on, knew it would create an obvious risk to life, that he recognised the risk and proceeded to take it. Since the judge had applied an objective test, the convictions were quashed and the court substituted convictions on the lesser charge of simple arson.

Raana Sheikh, Rudi Fortson (Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the appellants; Anthony McNeile (CPS) for the Crown.

Child

Re T (a minor); CA (Nourse LJ, Wall J); 29 April 1994.

Where the threshold conditions of s 31 of the Children Act 1989 were satisfied and the court decided in the best interests of the child to make a care order, it had no power under s 31 to impose any conditions on such an order. In the present case the court had no power to make a care order with a condition that the child reside at home.

Richard Anelay QC, Jamal Khan (council solicitor) for Wolverhampton council; Allan Levy QC (Hugh Howard and Paul Tain, Walsall) for the guardian ad litem; Estella Hindley QC, Anne Smallwood (Haden Stretton Slater Miller, Walsall) for the parents.

Possession

Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Grant; CA (Nourse LJ, Wall J); 29 April 1994.

Where the court was satisfied a mortgagor was likely to be able within a reasonable period of time to pay arrears and current instalments due under the mortgage, the court had a discretionary power to suspend an order for possession under s 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and s 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973, but there should be no rigid rules as to how district and county court judges should satisfy themselves for the purposes of those sections and it must be possible for them to act without evidence on the basis of informal material.

David Phillips (Lynda Blackwell, Fareham) for the appellant; Witold Pawlak (Lawtons, Newton Abbot) for the respondent.