[2018] EWCA Crim 2743 [2018] EWCA Crim 2743

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 s.44(1)(b), which made it an offence for the donee of a lasting or enduring power of attorney to willfully neglect or ill-treat a donor, required the prosecution to prove that the donor, at the relevant time, had lacked capacity, or that the defendant donee had reasonably believed that the donor had lacked capacity.

[2018] EWHC 3154 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 3154 (Admin)

A police officer who had been bitten by a man whilst helping other officers restrain him was “acting in the execution of his duty” for the purposes of the Police Act 1996 s.89(1). Although the restraint by his colleagues had been unlawful, the officer had an independent justification for his intervention, namely to prevent his fellow constables from being assaulted. In so finding, the court distinguished the case of Cumberbatch v Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 3353 (Admin).

[2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 3122 (Admin)

A slaughterhouse had been under a strict obligation to sever a chicken’s main arteries systematically and a concomitant strict obligation to spare the bird avoidable pain under Regulation 1099/2009 art.3(1) and art.15(1), as enforced in the UK under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 reg.30(1)(g). Social concern regarding animal welfare meant that it was appropriate to displace the presumption that proof of mens rea was required.

[2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB)

A recorder had been wrong to find that a driver who died in a car crash while speeding down a dual carriageway had been engaged in a criminal joint enterprise of dangerous driving with the driver of another car, which barred a damages claim by the deceased’s partner on the grounds of ex turpi causa. The partner’s claim was to be determined in accordance with the normal principles of causation and contributory negligence.

[2018] EWHC 3330 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 3330 (Admin)

The decisions in Harris v DPP [1993] 1 W.L.R. 82 and R. v Deegan (Desmond Garcia) [1998] 2 WLUK 84 provided a clear and straightforward interpretation of the term “folding pocketknife” in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.139(2). For a knife to be a folding pocketknife, the blade had to be immediately foldable at all times, simply by pressing it into place. If any further action was required, such as pressing a button or releasing a catch, the knife was not a folding pocketknife.