One in the eye for all those who claim that Britain is turning into a USA-style "compensation culture", from the Evening Times of all places.

Michelle Orchard had sued a 13 year old boy who injured her whilst playing tag. She was in hospital for six weeks with her injuries. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that she was not entitled to compensation from the boy. Lord Justice Waller is quoted as saying: "Thirteen-year-old boys will be 13-year-old boys who will play tag."

Interesting that she chose to sue a 13 year old. What was she planning to do? Recover the award in installments from his pocket money or paper round wages?

In writing up the case for the law reports, I'd suggest the following as a rubic: "Accidents happen."

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online

Labels: Children, Health and Safety, News

Just came across this post on the extradition of the Howes family by/to the USA.

According to the website, the family ran a small business selling chemicals over the Internet from the home in Bo'ness. However two of the substances they sold were iodine and red phosphorus. The former has medical uses and the latter is often used in the manufacture of fireworks and other pyrotechnics.

Their business was perfectly legitimate, had been checked by the Health & Safety Executive and neither substance is controlled under Scots (or UK) law. However, they are ingredients in crystal meth, and as such US enforcement agencies have decided to take action.

Under the terms of the draconian extradition treaty our government has kindly signed with the United States, US law enforment agencies no longer have to provide evidence of a prima facie case in order to secure extradition.

And so, due to our efforts to fight the "war on terror", a Scottish couple running a legitimate business have already spent 7 months on remand and may well end up spending the next twenty years of their lives doing hard time in an Arizona prison.

Which seems a little harsh, doesn't it?

Labels: criminal law, Health and Safety, Human Rights, News

I learn, from no lesser source than the online Belfast Telegraph that the European Court of Justice has decided in principle that the French government has a right to ban the energy drink Red Bull.

The article states that a study by the French Scientific Committee on Human Nutrition concluded Red Bull contained excessive caffeine. It also raised concerns about taurine and glucuronolactone.

It continues: "The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food conducted a study last year, and found that while caffeine levels in energy drinks were safe, more studies were needed to assess the dangers of taurine and glucuronolactone. While other toxicology experts had concluded that the caffeine levels in Red Bull are safe, France had a right to ban the drink on the advice of its own experts, the court said."

"The fizzy drink has been linked to several deaths and some experts have criticised its high levels of caffeine and other stimulants."

The advertising claim that Red Bull "gives you wings" was presumably not intended to refer to angelic wings.

Labels: European Law, Health and Safety, News