Should the Home Office be liable for damage done by Borstal boys “escaping” from an “open” Borstal? On the other side of the Channel the liability of the state in the case of the near-equivalent “institution publique d'éducation surveillée” has been settled in two exceptionally interesting judgments of the Conseil d'Etat, Thouzellier, 3 February 1956, Rec. 49, and Trouillet, 9 March 1966, Rec. 201, the grounds of which repay study. In England a county court judge had held in 1951 that there was liability (Greenwell v. Prison Commissioners, 101 L.J. 486): the judgment was widely noticed and not appealed against. Now, eighteen years later, in Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v. Home Office [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1008 the Home Office, that compulsive defender of prerogative and atavistic privilege, seek to establish as a matter of law that they cannot be liable, however gross the dereliction of duty by the Borstal officers.

When a defendant is charged with murder and wishes to rely on the defence of provocation, two conditions need to be satisfied. First, the provocation must have caused the defendant to lose his or her self-control suddenly and temporarily. This is the subjective condition. Secondly, the provocation must be such that the reasonable person might have reacted to it in the same way as the defendant. This is the objective condition. This condition is, however, qualified, since it is possible to imbue the reasonable person with relevant characteristics of the defendant, to see whether a reasonable person with such characteristics might have killed had he or she been provoked. Although this qualification of the objective test has been recognised for some time, it has become a matter of recent controversy as to when a particular characteristic of the defendant can be considered to be relevant and what the rationale of this qualification of the objective test actually is. Two distinct lines of authority can be identified. According to the first line, a characteristic can, generally, only be relevant if it affects the gravity of the provocation: Camplin [1978] A.C. 705 (H.L.). So, for example, if the provocation relates to the defendant's characteristic then it can be considered to be relevant, because the reasonable person would be more likely to have lost self-control if he or she had such a characteristic: Morhall [1996] A.C. 90 (H.L.), Luc Thiet Thuan [1997] A.C. 131 (P.C.). This line of authority does, however, recognise an exception to the general principle, namely that the reasonable person can be imbued with the defendant's age or gender, not because these characteristics affected the gravity of the provocation, but because they are characteristics which may affect the defendant's ability to exercise self-control: Camplin. But these are the only characteristics which can be taken into account for this reason. According to the second line of authority, however, any characteristic can be treated as relevant simply because it affects the defendant's ability to exercise self-control. This has been recognised in six recent decisions of the Court of Appeal, where the reasonable person was imbued with a wide variety of characteristics, such as battered woman syndrome (Thornton (No. 2) [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1174) and attention-seeking (Humphreys [1995] 4 All ER. 1008), simply because such characteristics affected the defendant's ability to exercise self-control.

CRIMINAL complicity has been dramatically changed by the combined decisions of the UK Supreme Court and the Privy Council in Jogee; Ruddock [2016] UKSC 8; [2016] UKPC 7; [2016] 2 W.L.R. 681. At least since the Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, it has been settled that a person (S) who has intentionally assisted or encouraged another (P) to commit a crime has been liable to be tried, convicted, and punished as if S was a principal. For decades, there has also been a much-debated, additional form of complicity where the accomplice was “parasitically” liable for further crimes committed by P beyond the scope of a common criminal purpose shared by S and P. For that kind of liability, the accomplice need not have assisted or encouraged the further crime but need only have foreseen that it was a possible incident of the common purpose. The effect of Jogee and Ruddock is that this further form of complicity, first recognised explicitly in the Privy Council decision of Chan Wing-Siu [1985] A.C. 168 and later endorsed by the House of Lords in Powell; English [1999] 1 A.C. 1, has been shorn off the criminal law. As a result, Chan Wing-Siu directions will no longer be given to juries.

Dyslexia is a specific difficulty in learning how to use written notation, not attributable to generally low intellectual performance, emotional difficulties, or external factors. While its existence as a condition in its own right had been suspected for over a century, it is only much more recently that relatively definite tests for its existence have been developed. Even now, no one test can conclusively show its presence or absence. Local education authorities must provide for the special educational needs of children under their care, though it is settled law that the authorities cannot themselves be sued for breach of those duties (X (Minors) v. Bedfordshire C.C. [1995] 2 A.C. 633). However, X contains strong dicta that where the plaintiff can demonstrate negligence by particular members of staff, such as educational psychologists, then those members of staff will be personally liable, and the authority will be vicariously liable. Phelps v. Hillingdon L.B.C. [1999] 1 W.L.R. 500 raises the question whether this is actually so. The Court of Appeal, reversing Garland J., have now held that there is no such liability. The court heard that even if (contrary to their view) the plaintiff in the case could establish professional negligence by an educational psychologist through failure to diagnose her dyslexia, and that this negligence caused her appreciable harm, none the less she had no cause of action.

THE image of King Canute trying to hold back the tide is a popular one used to critique attempts by national courts to restrain the publication of private information in the face of a global and online media. The truth, or at least the allegation, will out. The issue is certainly not a new one. The futility of an injunction in England and Wales, given extensive publication out of the jurisdiction, played a key role in the Spycatcher litigation in the late 1980s. Such futility is a feature of confidentiality or secrecy: the tide of information cannot be held back in an information age. In PJS v News Group Newspapers [2016] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court, endorsing an approach developed by the High Court in several earlier authorities, distinguished between protecting confidentiality and preventing intrusion as twin rationales for the tort of misuse of private information. The intrusion of a pending media storm in the jurisdiction, repeating allegations already widely available, was a further misuse of private information and could usefully be restrained in England and Wales. Even where confidentiality had already been lost, privacy injunctions could continue to play a useful role as a defence against the significant additional intrusion, at least where it could be practicably restrained, and the pending media storm that would accompany a lifting of the injunction represented one such case.

It is one of the best-known axioms of the common law of contract that consideration must move from the promisee. Expanded, this means that no person can in contract enforce a promise for which he has not provided consideration. As a principle, it has on its side the highest authority and a reasonable degree of antiquity.

Ten years ago, however, the High Court of Australia came up with a formula which, while purporting to respect the principle, would, if accepted, have the effect of reducing its impact in a potentially important group of cases. In Coulls v. Bagot's Executor and Trustee Co. Ltd. four of the five High Court judges expressed the view that a joint promisee, if she were party to a contract, could sue to enforce it notwithstanding that she had not herself furnished any part of the consideration. The case concerned a widow whose late husband had contracted to grant a licence to a quarrying company for the extraction of metal from a quarry which the husband owned. Under the contract royalties were to be paid to the husband and wife jointly while they both lived, and there after to the survivor of them. The wife's only part in the proceedings had been to append her signature to the contract document. Barwick C.J. and Windeyer J. (dissenting) held that the plaintiff was a party to the contract and, as a joint promisee, could enforce it notwith-standing that her husband alone had provided the consideration. McTiernan, Taylor and Owen JJ. agreed that if she had been a party the fact that it was her husband who had provided the consideration would not have been an impediment to her.