|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| August 1967 |
|
|
Family hardship does not justify reduced sentence; prior convictions and public protection can warrant increased custodial sentence.
Criminal procedure – Sentencing – Family hardship not a ground for mitigation; prior convictions reduce entitlement to leniency; guilty plea and cooperation as mitigating factors; public protection and prevalence justify increased custodial sentence; backdating of sentence to date of detention.
|
24 August 1967 |
|
Summary dismissal justified where unauthorised personal profit, secrecy and breaches of duty destroyed employer's confidence.
Employment law — Summary dismissal — Misconduct, unauthorised diversion of employer's business, breach of confidence, failure to follow express instructions; onus on employer to justify summary dismissal; recovery of unpaid accounts by counter-claim.
|
23 August 1967 |
|
Council's politically motivated revocation of a market trading licence was ultra vires, discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Licence v lease – daily stall occupancy was a licence, not a tenancy; Markets Ordinance s.3(a) – "control and management" permits grant/termination of licences by resolution; Public authority discretionary powers – must conform to law and natural justice; Judicial review – courts may probe bad faith, extraneous considerations or unreasonableness; Political discrimination – terminating a licence because of political opinion is discriminatory under Constitution s.25; Deprivation of property – removal of stall constituted deprivation under s.13.
|
22 August 1967 |
|
Council could terminate market licences, but termination must be fair; here it was ultra vires and politically discriminatory.
Administrative law – local authority discretion – Markets Ordinance s.3(a) – licence v lease – revocation of licence – natural justice and Wednesbury unreasonableness – political discrimination contrary to Constitution s.25 – deprivation of property s.13.
|
22 August 1967 |
|
Convictions quashed where confession was admitted without a 'trial within a trial' and uncorroborated accomplice evidence was unreliable.
Evidence — Confessions: voluntariness must be determined by a 'trial within a trial' before admission. Accomplice testimony: uncorroborated accomplice evidence requires caution and a formal warning. Criminal procedure — appellate revision to quash convictions where procedural defects render convictions unsafe.
|
4 August 1967 |
|
No case to answer where principal prosecution witnesses were unreliable accomplices and evidence was insufficient to convict.
Criminal procedure – case to answer – test: whether prosecution evidence could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict; no-case submission proper where essential element unproved or evidence manifestly unreliable; prosecution witness may be treated as hostile where trial testimony departs from preliminary inquiry; unreliable or partly false evidence given negligible weight; one accomplice cannot corroborate another; treason – requirement of overt act and reliable corroboration.
|
1 August 1967 |