harrow lbc v shah case summary Navigation

The defendants owned a newsagent’s business where lottery tickets were sold. The HoL convicted the defendant as they had supplied the drugs without prescription. Robert Denman (Joseph Aaron & Co, Ilford) for the plaintiff; Timothy Fancourt (Collyer-Bristow) for the first defendant; Justin Althaus (Armstrong & Co) for Mr & Mrs Uddin. Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and anor; QBD, Div Ct (Kennedy LJ, Mitchell J) 19 Apr 1999. Summary of cases. Mills was a tenant in a council flat which was built in 1919 and owned by Southwark LBC. Facts: The defendant (D), and an accomplice, wounded some victims with intent. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) QBD The owners of a shop were aware of the rules about the sale of lottery tickets. In the case of Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999, who was the defence of due diligence allowed for under the relevant act? 1. Shah v HSBC: High Court ... Summary. The factual test which the Commission identified in Buckley v United Kingdom had been adopted by the Court in at least one previous case. the case of Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v SSETR & Harrow LBC [2000] JPL 1025 was relevant. They were: the size of the structure in question; its permanence and the degree of physical attachment to the ground. Liability depending on fault;Actus Reus: ... or in cases where the V's own actions contributed to the consequences as was the case in R v Williams and Davis Homicide highlights the idea of liability depending on fault as intent has to be proven to establish a ... Alphacell v Woodward, and Harrow LBC v Shah. D then attacked those who came to help a girl he had pushed to the ground. The Potential Content given in each case is the most likely correct response to the question set. although this area is very haphazard as in the case of Harrow LBC v Shah (1999) where there was a section in the statute to allow a due diligence defence for promoters of the lottery but not for those managing businesses where the lottery is sold. Harrow pursue a further appeal before your Lordships. The respondent, Mr Qazi, lived with his then wife Mrs Saman Qazi and their daughter in a two-bedroomed house at 31 Hutton Lane, Harrow Weald, Middlesex. Deliberate risk taking: 15. In Gillow v United Kingdom (1986) 11 EHRR 335 the Court observed at pp 348-349, para 46 that, although the applicants had been absent from the house in Guernsey of which they had retained ownership for almost nineteen years, they had not established any other … One of the staff sold one to a 13 year old without asking for ID. This subsection does not include any words indicating either that mens rea is required or that it is not, nor does it contain any provision for the defence of ‘due diligence’. A SINGLE incident of torture of a person who claimed asylum on the basis of a fear of persecution might amount to persecution if a group of which that person was a … Conversely where there is a true crime the presumption of mens reaprevails. strict liability revision notes definition contrast with absolute liability strict liability offences do not need mens rea to be established for to be guilty. allowed for promoters of the lottery but not for those managing a business in which lottery tickets were sold Facts. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the fifth had entered with his parents for settlement and had indefinite leave to remain. The students were smoking cannabis in the house. The crime is regulatory as oppose to a true crime. In Giannetto (1997) 1 Cr App R 1, D was convicted of the murder of his wife, V. According to the prosecution’s case, V was murdered either by D or by a hired killer on his behalf. She was charged with an offence of being concerned with the management of premises which were being used for the purposes of smoking cannabis contrary to s.5 (6) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. It also provides links to case-notes and summaries. They put up notices in their shop, and told staff not to sell any tickets to anyone under the age of 16. Shah v Barnet London Borough Council [1983] 1 All ER 226 (HL) Ordinarily resident. Andreae v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1938] Ch 1 (This case was a common law action between private parties, not a section 10 case). In that instance, 3 factors were to be addressed. There have also been a number of other cases which involved a regulatory offence being interpreted as an offence of strict liability, Cundy v Le Cocq (1884), Gammon (1984), Harrow LBC v Shah The defendants owed a newsagent's business where lottery tickets were sold. AAA BPP Study Text 2019 - Summary ACCA P7 Advanced Audit and Assurance (International) FYP Dissertation; EAT 340 Solutions - UNIT1 Lesson 12 - Revision Material (Previous Examination Paper 2017 ) Ethics note - I am currently study in city law university, my lecture for this subject is It is Mrs. Fahia's contention that Harrow were bound to conduct the full statutory inquiries required by Part III of the Act which they, admittedly, had not done. They had told their staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years. There was no finding that the defendant had acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently. Mr. Qazi and his wife were joint tenants of a council flat. Possession proceedings against a former joint tenant and the right to respect for a home under the European Convention of Human Rights. Most are encapsulated in the summary given by Sir Anthony Clarke MR in . Nevertheless one of their staff sold a ticket to … The appellant's case on appeal (as at trial) was that this was a classic case of a person intending to get rid of his rights by way of a gift, rather than to become a trustee. 2) vicarious liability. 1) strict liability. Mills complained under a provision within the tenancy agreement that the noise insulation between the flats was wholly inadequate as against normal use of the premises. The Supreme Court decision in Cusack v London Borough of Harrow [2013] UKSC 40 holds that, given a choice of apparently overlapping statutory powers for erecting barriers preventing access to the highway from private property abutting the highway, a highway authority is entitled to invoke the power that does not entail the payment of compensation to the property owner. The rest of the island had been acquired by the defendant which was demolishing and rebuilding the other properties. Continue reading "R (Chavda) v Harrow LBC [2007] EWHC 3064 (Admin)" ... Summary of case To make savings in light of budget deficits, the London Borough of Harrow proposed restricting the provision of adult care services to people with critical needs only. Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council; Price and others and others v Leeds City Council [2006] were two, conjoined appeals in the final court of appeal relevant for English property law, UK human rights and English tort law (trespass). - underage sale. Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah: HL 16 Dec 1982 The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. The wife gave notice to terminate the tenancy and left the flat with her daughter. Qazi v Harrow [2003] UKHL 43. They had not told their staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years old. Facts. She was unaware of this activity. Help Shift+Alt+S Search Shift+Alt+A Advanced Search Shift+Alt+B Browse Shift+Alt+D Documents Shift+Alt+M My Justis General Shift+Alt+C They had told their staff not to tell tickets to anyone under 16 and had told their staff that they should ask for proof of age. Mr. -harrow lbc v shah a D owned a newsagents where lottery tickets were sold. In Callow v Tillstone (1990), it was held that the selling of meat unfit for human consumption was an offence of strict liability. Where the crime is regulatory as oppose to a true crime, the presumption of mens reagives way to a finding of strict liability. D appealed on the ground that, if the prosecution could not prove whether he had murdered V himself or someone else had done it, he was entitled to an acquittal. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999- Ds' were shop owners and told their staff not to sell lottery tickets to anyone under 16. undefined: unpaid. Criminal Cases. Cited – Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand HL 13-Jul-1869. However, this material is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive and alternative, valid ... eg Harrow LBC v Shah, Blake, Smedleys v Breed, Alphacell v Woodward. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah - example of what type of offence: 16. The defendant was charged under S58(2) of the Medicines Act which states that no one shall supply certain drugs without a doctor's prescription. The plaintiff complained, and the judge found, that by reason of the operations, which involved noise and . He slashed one man with a razor, causing severe wounds to his head and chest. In . Resource summary. Get free access to the complete judgment in London Borough of Harrow v Ayiku on CaseMine. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah Why was the defence not open to them? Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) The owner of a shop frequently reminded their staff to not sell lottery tickets to people under the age of 16, and put up signs in the shop. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal held in favour of Mrs. Fahia on these two latter points. Jeynes v News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130 at [14]: ... Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241, 263. Allergic reaction to … Those facts are simple. This appeal concerns the meaning of that provision and its application to the facts of this case. The defendant had supplied drugs on prescriptions, but the prescriptions were later found to be forged. 1970 case - wife jumped out of window - gbh - 13. A ticket was sold to 13 year old. This page provides a list of cases cited in our Criminal Law Lecture Notes, as well as other cases you might find useful. Some Statutory Exceptions: Reasonable belief as to V’s age s.28 Misuse of … In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999), it was established that if the employee is carrying out an authorised act, the employer will be vicariously liable for him even if the employer takes steps to ensure that the law has not been broken. This was an education case in which the court said that the phrase ‘ordinarily resident’ (in s 1 of the Education Act 1962) was to be construed according to its natural and ordinary meaning.  In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) the defendants were charged under s13 (1) (c) of the National Lottery Act 1993. Error of law Foundation Law 2013/14 1 Lecture 6 Introduction to Criminal Law Reading List: Jacqueline Martin, “GCSE Law”, 5th edition, Chapter 21- Criminal Law: introduction Cases: R v Lewis (1970) R v Smith (1959) R v Jordan (1956) R v Cheshire (1991) R v Mohan (1976) Winzar v Chief Constable for Kent (1983) Harrow LBC v Shah & Shah (1999) Preparatory Questions for … 2. The statute did not state any requirement of mens rea of the offence. Undre v Harrow LBC [2016] EWHC 931 (QB) [24-26], [31]. London Borough of Harrow (Appellants) v. Qazi (FC) (Respondent) 1. By article 8 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights "Everyone has the right to respect for . . . his home . . .". This appeal concerns the meaning of that provision and its application to the facts of this case. The plaintiff had a hotel. Even though he took all reasonable steps he was still convicted because due dillegence was a defence not granted. In the present case both the judge and the Court of Appeal held that the chain of causation could be broken in ways other than by obtaining intervening settled accommodation. Accordingly they held that the local authority had misdirected itself in looking only to the question whether Mrs. Fahia had obtained interim settled accommodation. Navigation Shift+Alt+? what are the facts of Harrow LBC v shah and shah D told his staff to ID anyone under 16 buying a lotteryticket and his staff sold a ticket to 13 year olds. They had told their staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years old and had also put up notices in the shop stating this. Another case where the defendants were guilty due to the fact that there was not a ‘due diligence’ clause is: Harrow LBC v Shan Shan (1999) – The defendant owned a newsagents business where lottery tickets were sold. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) 3 All ER 302. The alternative of this argument is that the imposition of strict liability cannot be Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and another [1999] 3 All ER 302 - S 13 NLA. - underage sale. 1) strict liability. 2) vicarious liability. Lecture 6 handout 1. Page 1. Another example of a strict liability offence is Harrow London Borough v Shah (1999). Harrow London Borough Council v Shah and another [1999] 3 All ER 302 - S 13 NLA. The facts of this case highlight the difficult practical issues which can arise when a bank reports money laundering suspicions in relation to a … See notes on strict liability, here. Case Reports Harrow LBC v Cunningham [1996] IRLR 256, EAT; Harrow LBC v Cunningham ... Summary. As no mens rea was required both Ds' were guilty. R v Belfon [1976] 1 WLR 741. . The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that an employee was not unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct despite the fact that another equally culpable employee involved in the same incident was only given a final written warning. The Council said size here was not a concern.