• CRIMINAL

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Regina v Lee Carter

The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a recommended minimum term of 10 years. He appeals against his conviction for murder by leave of the Full Court given in September 2008 on the basis of fresh medical evidence. The sole issue is whether fresh medical evidence might reasonably have affected the decision of the jury to convict and so render the conviction unsafe. Shortly after arrest the appellant confessed separately in the presence of solicitors from two different firms. The first of those solicitors was called by the Crown at trial and gave evidence strongly rebutting the appellant's explanation as to why he had confessed. The appellant did not repudiate his confession when interviewed in the presence of the second solicitor. He also wrote a series of letters from prison in which he clearly accepted that he was responsible for inflicting the fatal injuries on the deceased. Moreover, there was never any suggestion that he had tailored his confession to fit with the state of the medical evidence as made known to him. This is very compelling evidence. Whilst there is now evidence of a different mechanism of causation in terms of detail, this difference does not undermine the essential force and thrust of the appellant's repeated confessions.

• Intellectual Property Rights

England and Wales Patents County Court

Anglia Outflow Limited v Wright field Limited

This is a costs judgment in a copyright infringement action which came unravelled in three stages and was finally abandoned by the claimants A dispute has now arisen as to who is to pay the costs (which are substantial) for what has happened. The general rule is of course that a claimant is responsible for the defendant's costs up to the date when the notice of discontinuance is served. However, in this case the claimants argue that a substantial deduction should be made from such liability in view of what they say has been the defendant's unreasonable behaviour at all stages (particularly the last) in its conduct of this litigation. It was held that the costs should be paid on the standard basis.