Case citation: R v Trousdale A20200057 in the Crown Court at Southwark before Her Honour Judge Taylor, Supplement, 18 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review (2021)

Interview with the State Coroner conducted on 12 August 2021 via a video link to the Coroners Court of Victoria in Melbourne.

Abstract An examination and discussion of the recent decision of the High Court (His Honour Judge Matthews) in Lines v Wilcox [2019] EWHC 1451 (Ch), concerning the availability of Beddoe relief in the context of proceedings involving trusts and estates. The fact pattern will be familiar to any practitioner in this field, and the decision is therefore of wide application. Specifically, the article considers the decision of the High Court to refuse Beddoe relief to an administrator of an estate who sought permission to prosecute a claim to set aside an inter vivos transfer of property made by the deceased in favour of a beneficiary named in her will.

Her Honour Judge Patricia Smyth (HHJ Smyth) was interviewed on Wednesday 22 June 2016 at the Newry Courthouse, Northern Ireland, by barrister Seamus Mulholland and legal academic Sara Ramshaw. HHJ Smyth was an invaluable contributor to the Into the Key of Law research project, volunteering as a project interviewee, focus group member and a panel participant at the “Just Improvisation: Enriching child protection law through musical techniques, discourses and pedagogies” Symposium at Queen’s University Belfast, 29 – 30 May 2015. In this interview, HHJ Smyth provides valuable insight into a variety of important issues, such as training judges to become better improvisers, the limits of improvisation
 
 in, particularly, Northern Irish family law, the existing structures or skills that make improvisation possible and, perhaps most importantly, the importance of creativity, “bespoke solutions”, and attentive or deep listening in the family law realm.

The Improvising Judge: An Interview with Her Honour Judge Patricia Smyth, Northern Ireland County Court

Why 'Uber Case' Is Manifestly Wrong

CHRONIC Traumatic Encephalophy (CTE) is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain found in athletes who have a history of repetitive brain trauma, including symptomatic concussions and asymptomatic subconcussive hits to the head. One of the leading groups studying the impact of is the Boston University Center. On its website, (1) the Center provides graphic evidence of CTE's impact on an individual's brain. As the Center points out, CTE has been known to affect boxers since the 1920s. However, recent reports have been published of neurophathologically confirmed in retired professional football players and other athletes who have a history of repetitive brain trauma. This trauma triggers progressive degeneration of the brain tissue, including the build-up of an abnormal protein called tau. These changes in the brain can begin months, years, or even decades, after the last brain trauma or end of active athletic involvement. The brain degeneration is associated with memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, impulse control problems, aggression, depression, and eventually progressive dementia. (2) It can also be associated with Parkinsonism, speech and gait abnormalities. These types of repetitive closed head injuries occur in a wide-variety of contact sports, including football, boxing, wrestling, rugby, hockey, lacrosse, soccer, and even skiing. In sports like football, hockey and boxing, players may experience multiple subconcussive hits over the course of a single season. (3) The Center for Disease Control estimates that anywhere from 1.6 million to 3.8 million concussions occur each year. Compared to all contact sports, football has the highest risk of concussions. The CDC estimates that there is a 75% chance of concussions for males playing football. (4) In the last five years, football-related concussions have become a hot topic, mostly due to the initiation of multiple lawsuits filed by former professional football players against the National Football League (NFL). The lawsuits filed against the NFL raise many legal implications, including the correct standard to apply; the potential liability of the NFL; the requirement of insurers to defend and indemnify the teams and/or the NFL; and whether there is a causal link between the concussions sustained by the players and the lingering effects on those retired players. In June 2012, more than 80 lawsuits including over 2,000 former NFL players were consolidated into one master complaint, which was filed in the federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the Honorable Judge Anita Brody will preside over the case. The Complaint contained twelve causes of action against various entities, including the NFL, alleging that the NFL fraudulently concealed the long-term effects of concussions (fraud) and that the NFL failed to implement proper guidelines to decrease the risk of concussions (negligence). The Plaintiffs consist of numerous retired NFL players, all of whom claim that they are suffering from various lingering effects of concussions sustained while they played in the NFL. They allege that the NFL had research and information many years ago that indicated that concussions could cause these lingering effects, but that the NFL withheld this information from players. In response, the NFL claimed that it never had any information and that it has always made player safety a priority. It has also asserted arguments that these issues are covered by the collective bargaining agreement, and thus Judge Brody had no jurisdiction to decide the case. After years of back and forth negotiations, the former NFL players and the NFL reached a settlement, which was approved in April 2015 by the Judge Brody. Although the settlement is a positive step towards obtaining the funds and medical care to the players, it is far from over. The settlement is still being criticized by many former players since it does not cover future players diagnosed with CTE, which has led to many players opting out of the settlement. …

Nathaniel Jones was born May 12, 1926, in Youngstown, Ohio, and served as the general counsel for the NAACP from 1969–1979. During that time, he litigated the Milliken v. Bradley I case before the U.S. District Court in 1971 and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter nominated Nathaniel Jones to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and at 87 years of age, he still serves as a retired senior judge for the court. Our conversation with the Honorable Judge Nathaniel Jones entails his reflections about Milliken 40 years later, origins of his involvement in the case, and suggestions for school desegregation advocates in the 21st century. To begin, we briefly describe Milliken and how the conversation with Judge Jones came about. We organized our conversation around topical areas about the case, which reflect our interview questions. Our discussion with Judge Jones occurred on March 22, 2014, in Cincinnati, Ohio. This conversation concludes with Nathaniel Jones discussing what Detroit and other urban schools districts could potentially be like if Milliken would have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Case Transcript - Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 Day 9 Thursday 21 October 2010 England & Wales; theft; electronic evidence; Post Office Horizon System; ‘reliability’ of computers From the EDITORIAL by Stephen Mason: In this issue of the journal, the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra is published in full. I thank His Honour Judge Stewart for granting permission to buy a copy of the transcript and to the publication of the transcript. Judge Stewart requested me to obtain the permission of Seema Mira to the publication of the transcript – an action I certainly would have taken in any event. I also thank Seema Misra for her agreement to publish the transcript. Seema Misra agreed to the publication, knowing it would be available to anyone with access to the internet or a legal electronic database. I am given to understand by Alan Bates, the chair of Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, that Seema Misra’s case is now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Seema Misra understood that making the transcript available publically in this way would, in her opinion, help her case.We are pleased to be able to present the full case transcript for Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 in the Documents Supplement to this issue of the journal. The page layout and pagination of the original transcript for each day have been retained for ease of reference to the text searchable PDFs. The links in the Index will take you through to the transcript of proceedings in the Documents Supplement for that particular court day.

Case Transcript - Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 Day 6 Monday 18 October 2010England & Wales; theft; electronic evidence; Post Office Horizon System; ‘reliability’ of computers From the EDITORIAL by Stephen Mason: In this issue of the journal, the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra is published in full. I thank His Honour Judge Stewart for granting permission to buy a copy of the transcript and to the publication of the transcript. Judge Stewart requested me to obtain the permission of Seema Mira to the publication of the transcript – an action I certainly would have taken in any event. I also thank Seema Misra for her agreement to publish the transcript. Seema Misra agreed to the publication, knowing it would be available to anyone with access to the internet or a legal electronic database. I am given to understand by Alan Bates, the chair of Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, that Seema Misra’s case is now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Seema Misra understood that making the transcript available publically in this way would, in her opinion, help her case.We are pleased to be able to present the full case transcript for Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 in the Documents Supplement to this issue of the journal. The page layout and pagination of the original transcript for each day have been retained for ease of reference to the text searchable PDFs. The links in the Index will take you through to the transcript of proceedings in the Documents Supplement for that particular court day.

Case Transcript - Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070Day 1 Monday 11 October 2010England & Wales; theft; electronic evidence; Post Office Horizon System; ‘reliability’ of computersFrom the EDITORIAL by Stephen Mason: In this issue of the journal, the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra is published in full. I thank His Honour Judge Stewart for granting permission to buy a copy of the transcript and to the publication of the transcript. Judge Stewart requested me to obtain the permission of Seema Mira to the publication of the transcript – an action I certainly would have taken in any event. I also thank Seema Misra for her agreement to publish the transcript. Seema Misra agreed to the publication, knowing it would be available to anyone with access to the internet or a legal electronic database. I am given to understand by Alan Bates, the chair of Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, that Seema Misra’s case is now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Seema Misra understood that making the transcript available publically in this way would, in her opinion, help her case.We are pleased to be able to present the full case transcript for Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 in the Documents Supplement to this issue of the journal. The page layout and pagination of the original transcript for each day have been retained for ease of reference to the text searchable PDFs. The links in the Index will take you through to the transcript of proceedings in the Documents Supplement for that particular court day.

Case Transcript - Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 Day 8 Wednesday 20 October 2010 England & Wales; theft; electronic evidence; Post Office Horizon System; ‘reliability’ of computers From the EDITORIAL by Stephen Mason: In this issue of the journal, the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra is published in full. I thank His Honour Judge Stewart for granting permission to buy a copy of the transcript and to the publication of the transcript. Judge Stewart requested me to obtain the permission of Seema Mira to the publication of the transcript – an action I certainly would have taken in any event. I also thank Seema Misra for her agreement to publish the transcript. Seema Misra agreed to the publication, knowing it would be available to anyone with access to the internet or a legal electronic database. I am given to understand by Alan Bates, the chair of Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, that Seema Misra’s case is now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Seema Misra understood that making the transcript available publically in this way would, in her opinion, help her case.We are pleased to be able to present the full case transcript for Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 in the Documents Supplement to this issue of the journal. The page layout and pagination of the original transcript for each day have been retained for ease of reference to the text searchable PDFs. The links in the Index will take you through to the transcript of proceedings in the Documents Supplement for that particular court day.

Case citation: Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070Case commentary and Index to the transcript by Stephen Mason England & Wales; theft; electronic evidence; Post Office Horizon System; ‘reliability’ of computersFrom the EDITORIAL by Stephen Mason:In this issue of the journal, the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra is published in full. I thank His Honour Judge Stewart for granting permission to buy a copy of the transcript and to the publication of the transcript. Judge Stewart requested me to obtain the permission of Seema Mira to the publication of the transcript – an action I certainly would have taken in any event. I also thank Seema Misra for her agreement to publish the transcript. Seema Misra agreed to the publication, knowing it would be available to anyone with access to the internet or a legal electronic database. I am given to understand by Alan Bates, the chair of Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, that Seema Misra’s case is now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Seema Misra understood that making the transcript available publically in this way would, in her opinion, help her case.We are pleased to be able to present the full case transcript for Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 in the Documents Supplement to this issue of the journal. The page layout and pagination of the original transcript for each day have been retained for ease of reference to the text searchable PDFs. The links in this Index will take you through to the transcript of proceedings in the Documents Supplement for that particular court day.

Case Transcript - Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 Day 7 Tuesday 19 October 2010 England & Wales; theft; electronic evidence; Post Office Horizon System; ‘reliability’ of computers From the EDITORIAL by Stephen Mason: In this issue of the journal, the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra is published in full. I thank His Honour Judge Stewart for granting permission to buy a copy of the transcript and to the publication of the transcript. Judge Stewart requested me to obtain the permission of Seema Mira to the publication of the transcript – an action I certainly would have taken in any event. I also thank Seema Misra for her agreement to publish the transcript. Seema Misra agreed to the publication, knowing it would be available to anyone with access to the internet or a legal electronic database. I am given to understand by Alan Bates, the chair of Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, that Seema Misra’s case is now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Seema Misra understood that making the transcript available publically in this way would, in her opinion, help her case.We are pleased to be able to present the full case transcript for Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 in the Documents Supplement to this issue of the journal. The page layout and pagination of the original transcript for each day have been retained for ease of reference to the text searchable PDFs. The links in the Index will take you through to the transcript of proceedings in the Documents Supplement for that particular court day.

Case Transcript - Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 Sentence Thursday 11 November 2010England & Wales; theft; electronic evidence; Post Office Horizon System; ‘reliability’ of computers From the EDITORIAL by Stephen Mason: In this issue of the journal, the transcript of the trial of Seema Misra is published in full. I thank His Honour Judge Stewart for granting permission to buy a copy of the transcript and to the publication of the transcript. Judge Stewart requested me to obtain the permission of Seema Mira to the publication of the transcript – an action I certainly would have taken in any event. I also thank Seema Misra for her agreement to publish the transcript. Seema Misra agreed to the publication, knowing it would be available to anyone with access to the internet or a legal electronic database. I am given to understand by Alan Bates, the chair of Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance, that Seema Misra’s case is now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and Seema Misra understood that making the transcript available publically in this way would, in her opinion, help her case.We are pleased to be able to present the full case transcript for Regina v Seema Misra, T20090070 in the Documents Supplement to this issue of the journal. The page layout and pagination of the original transcript for each day have been retained for ease of reference to the text searchable PDFs. The links in the Index will take you through to the transcript of proceedings in the Documents Supplement for that particular court day.

This short paper considers the judgment of Her Honour Judge Taylor in the Central London County Court on 11th February, 2014 in the case of Jack Breuer v Alba Leccacorvi [2014] PLSCS159. The learned judge concluded that compensation under s.11(8) of the Party Wall Etc. Act 1996 (ie, expenses paid in lieu of the carrying out of work to make good damage) were payable under ordinary common law principles on the basis of diminution in value. This paper challenges that judgment. It argues that the particular wording of s.11(8), which refers to ‘the expenses of such making good’, clearly indicates that compensation is payable on the basis of the cost of rectification. Earlier case law has made it clear that common law remedies are supplanted by the statutory regime of the Act.

Blackburn and others v HM Revenue and Customs Commissioners: [2013] UKFTT 525 (TC): First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber: Her Honour Judge Barbara Mosedale: 2 October 2013

His Honour Judge Ehab Maher Elsonbaty outlines the main provisions of the recent electronic signature law enacted in Egypt and challenges the assumption that digital signatures can be considered the only form of electronic signature of any value.

Employment – Discrimination – Religion or belief – Muslim employee working as security guard – Employer under contractual requirement to provide security guards on site for duration of operating hours – Muslim employee requesting permission to attend mosque on Fridays – Employer unable to accede to request due to operational needs of business – Whether requirement to remain on site was a provision, criterion or practice that placed employee at a disadvantage – Whether proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – Whether discrimination on grounds of religion or belief – Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660), regulation 3 as amended.

Latvian people’s craving for freedom culminated in the beginning of 1990-s. The activity of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia was renewed, and the state power was returned to the people. From this moment, the work on dismantling the Soviet legal system in Latvia had started. A legal system had been redirected to the principles of the Western legal branch. The hard core of these principles was already in the Article 1 of the 1920 Constitution of the Republic of Latvia which states that Latvia is an independent and democratic republic. A key element of a democratic state is of a legal state. The division of powers, which is an essential element of a judge's independence, is in force in a legal state. Up to 2009 the judge’s independence was based on the understanding of the institutional independence, when the other branches of state power must not sit as a court, and on the understanding of the personal independence, when the pressure to the judge is not acceptable during the administration of justice. Only after the complication of the financial situation, there were also highlighted other elements of the judge’s independence principle, including financial security. Separate present cases in society, these together produce a variety of problems understanding the judge’s independence principle. It is positively characterized, that by expanding cooperation with foreign judges, the independence of Latvian judges’ self-consciousness is increasing. But these are not just demands for greater freedom. Currently, the Latvian legal system has identified several problems: 1) the admissibility of the judges participating in discussions with other government representatives, 2) the stability of judges' salaries, 3) the judges’ progress in their careers, 4) the best model for evaluating judges’ professional qualifications, 4) the need of judges’ administrative immunity; 5) the need of the Honour Judge Institute. The decisions of the Constitutional Court had a great impact on the understanding the content of the judge’s independence principle. The Constitutional Court at least in six cases have extended the judge’s independence principle, have given its clarification and the methodology of application. However, in practice, the main obstacles achieving the optimal model of freedom are not the rules of law. During economic problems the public do not attach importance to nuances of a freedom’s narrow aspect in the constitutional model. The public psychological portrait has not significantly changed during 20 years. Soviet people's fears and worry, lack of understanding the activity of state’s democratic elements make it difficult to improve the democratic state’s legal system. In addition it should be noted that the judiciary and the executive and the legislative powers are unable to negotiate with each other. Therefore, during the next few years the provisions of international rules and the arguments of the constitutional court’s decisions will, however, remain as implementation tools for the judge’s independence principle. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.5.1079