Our JUSTICE Student Members publishes these case notes for the purpose of assisting our members in the development of their legal knowledge. Here they summarise the key facts and analyse the outcome.
To publish and view the full case notes library in the JUSTICE members area – join as a student member here.
The two appellants in this joint appeal sought to challenge the operation of the statutory framework conferring the status of “relevant persons”, which grants procedural rights in Scotland’s children’s hearing process. These include the right to access to relevant documents before a hearing, to not accept grounds for referral, to legal representation and the right to appeal a panel’s decision.
In April 2019, a two month old girl (AX) died from multiple injuries whilst in the care of her mother and father. Both parents denied culpability, though have not disputed the medical evidence. Following the death of AX, the local authority was granted an Interim Care Order with regard to the deceased’s four year old sibling, SX, who has been in foster care since.
The appellant’s son was a suspected member of a terrorist organisation operating in Syria, whose alleged crimes involved the murder of British and US citizens, the severity and violence of which impacted the sensitivity of the investigation, and this judgment.
MS was a case about a Pakistani national, MS, who was trafficked to the UK and subjected to forced labour. The UK had established the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) to give effect to the identification of victims of human trafficking under article 10 of the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT).
This case concerned two judicial review appeals of a High Court decision in Northern Ireland: In re McGuinness’s Application  NIQB 10. The judicial review challenged the lawfulness of the ability of the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland to refer a prisoner, namely Mr Stone, to the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland .
The Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether the fact that an applicant was unrepresented and seeking legal aid constitutes a “good reason” for delay.