Nathan represented a prison healthcare provider for a multi-day article 2 jury Inquest before Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Worcestershire. The Inquest was held as a hybrid hearing with counsel and witnesses appearing remotely.
“In a previous article I considered the inconsistent approach taken to the categorisation of harm when sentencing Defendants in cases where sexual activity against children does not actually take place. That article focused on the judgments in R v Privett  EWCA Crim 557 (‘Privett’) and R v Manning  EWCA Crim 592 (‘Manning’).”
We are absolutely delighted to announce that Nathan Davis will join Park Square Barristers on 9th September as a tenant following the completion of his pupillage.
This comment notes the recent and interesting decision of the High Court in Rushbond Plc v The J S Design Partnership LLP  EWHC 1982 (TCC) which concerned whether a duty of care was owed from damage caused by a third party.
Nathan Davis comments on the recent Court of Appeal decision in R v Lawrence EWCA Crim 971. The Court had to determine whether a lie by the appellant as to his fertility could, in law, negate the consent given by the complainant.
Nathan Davis reviews two Court of Appeal cases which have considered the effect that COVID-19 can have in sentencing in cases where the custody threshold has been passed.
This article notes and comments upon the recent High Court decision Paul & Anor v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust  EWHC 1415 (QB) which concerned the scope of liability in ‘nervous shock’ cases where secondary victims suffer psychological harm
Reasonable expectation of privacy for those under police investigation This article notes the recent Court of Appeal decision in ZXC v Bloomberg LP  EWCA Civ 611 and the Court’s finding that the starting point is that suspects under investigation, pre-charge, have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The facts: The case concerned an article published […]
Inconsistent sentencing of Defendants in cases where sexual activity against children does not actually take place.
This comment notes the recent Court of Appeal decision which focused upon the interpretation of two category 1 factors indicating greater harm under the Sentencing Guideline for causing GBH or wounding with intent under section 18 OAPA 1861
Is an offence under section 13(1) Terrorism Act 2000 a strict liability offence?
Commentary on the recent Supreme Court Decision concerning the interpretation of section 4(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (‘section 4(1)’).