Court of Appeal questions Flashcards
(13 cards)
Why do you want to work at the CoA?
- Working on complex cases raising important points of law; intellectually challenging and give me the opportunity to see how parties plead their cases
- Gaining insight into judicial decision making at the court; this was one of the main things I gained from working at the ECHR, helpful if in the future I work on cases before the ECHR, similar with the court of appeal
- Gain valuable skills for a career at the Bar; forming an opinion of the case based on the papers, drafting a clear memorandum, and explaining my position orally before a judge
What do you think the judicial assistant role will involve?
Helping judges of the court with their caseload by reviewing the case documents, conducting legal research, preparing bench memoranda for hearings and applications for permission to appeal
Example of: drafting
LASP case accepted on papers
Example of: teamwork
Preparing schedules of information in GF
Example of: summarising large amounts of information
ECHR e.g., Article 9 case
Example of: legal research
ECHR e.g., Article 9 case
Example of: speech writing
Speeches for the deputy jurisconsult at the Superior Courts Network Forum 2024 on judicial communication strategies, how the courts interact with the public and with each other
Example of: organisation
LD - running to do list with prioritisation, calendar, communication with supervisor, excel spreadsheets to manage large amounts of data,
Summarise Wolverhampton v London Gypsies and Travellers briefly
- LAs obtained injunctions to prevent travellers from camping on their land without permission
- These were “newcomer injunctions” so directed at people who (1) were unknown at the time the injunction was issued; (2) were not party to the claim, and (3) had not yet carried out, or threatened to carry out, the prohibited behaviour
- A LA applied to extend their injunction and the High Court ordered a review of all the injunctions
- It held that the court was not able to issue final newcomer injunctions, because the subject of the injunction wasn’t given the opportunity to be heard before it came into force, and discontinued all the final injunctions
- The LAs appealed to the Court of Appeal, which overturned this decision
- Two groups representing the interests of travellers appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal
- Note: there were interveners in this case, including HS2, which was concerned about the outcome of this case due to the use of newcomer injunctions against protestors
- Crux of the Supreme Court’s decision was that legislation gives the courts an extremely wide discretion to create injunctions, and this discretion should not be fettered by establishing categories of injunctions which are prohibited
- The courts should be able to create new injunctions to deal with new issues - case law demonstrates that various kinds of injunctions have been created in the past, including directed at persons unknown, or the whole world, or persons not party to the claim
- The court’s discretion to create injunctions is not, however, unlimited, and they must be made in accordance with equitable principles
- The court expanded on the effect of equity in this context, finding that the courts should only grant this kind of injunction where (1) there is a compelling need to protect civil rights or enforce public law that is not adequately met by any other available remedies, (2) procedural safeguards are in place to allow newcomers to oppose the injunctions before or after they are made, (3) the LAs have a strict disclosure duty in hearing where travellers are not represented, (4) the injunctions are not too long and do not have too wide of a geographical effect, and (5) granting the injunction would be just and convenient
Do you agree with the decision in Wolverhampton v London Gypsies and Travellers?
Yes:
- The law is quite clear that courts have a really wide discretion when making injunctions, and the case law clearly states that this discretion shouldn’t be fettered. I think if a whole category of injunction were to be prohibited, this would be something that the legislature would have to do.
- These injunctions are used to prevent travellers from camping on areas that they do not have a right to camp on, so the injunctions are serving to protect the LAs existing legal rights. I do recognise the arguments made by the appellants about the chilling effect on travellers’ way of life, but so long as there are areas where travellers can camp, and these are clearly distinguishable from areas where there is an injunction in effect, this shouldn’t interfere with their existence. The interference with travellers’ ways of life is due to there not being enough areas that they can lawfully camp, not due to injunctions enforcing existing areas designated as unlawful to camp in.
- The court also explains why named injunctions can be ineffective in this context, because individual travellers move around so when you try to enforce an injunction, the named individuals are no longer the individuals at the site, so there is a practical need for unknown persons injunctions.
How does this role fit into your career plans?
Plan to practice at the Bar, applying for pupillage atm, this experience would develop various skills which would support this career - analysing case documents, legal research into tricky points of law, forming opinions on the law and defending them to a judge. Also give me the opportunity to observe oral and written advocacy styles of various barristers.
What is equity?
Equity is about justice and fairness, it can take various forms. In the context of this case, it means ensuring that where there is a right, there is a remedy; that the remedy can operate flexibly to meet new challenges; and that the focus is on substance rather than form, so ensuring that the remedy is just and convenient.
Do you prefer the court of appeal’s or supreme court’s reasoning?
The Supreme Court’s:
- It seems problematic to say that someone only becomes a defendant when they breach the injunction, because that suggests that the injunction only applies at the moment it is breached
- It also seems problematic to say that travellers who obey the injunction are not defendants
