Corporate Crime analysis: This case involved an appeal against conviction and sentence on behalf of a protestor associated with Extinction Rebellion who had been convicted of public nuisance. The appellant a well-known Paralympian with substantial visual impairment had glued himself to the roof of an aircraft at London City Airport. He was convicted at trial of public nuisance and sentenced to 12 months’ immediate custody. On appeal, the appellant argued that the judge erred in failing to stay the prosecution for the common law offence of public nuisance as an abuse of process, where the alternative statutory offence of aggravated trespass or breach of the City Airport Bylaws were available, such as to amount (among other things) to a breach of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court rejected all grounds of appeal against conviction finding that the gravamen of the offending was to cause serious disruption to the public which went beyond an offence of aggravated trespass. The court further observed that the Supreme Court in Ziegler had not created a free standing ground to stay a case as an abuse of process on the basis that the prosecution is a disproportionate interference with Convention rights. Written by Tayyiba Bajwa, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers.

Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs is an offence under section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). This is an indictable only offence and so can only be tried in the Crown Court. The elements of the offence A person commits an offence if they: • cause the death of another person • by driving • a mechanically propelled vehicle • on a road or other public place • without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place • and ◦ at the time of driving they were unfit to drive through drink or drugs ◦ the level of alcohol or drugs in their blood exceeds the legal limit ◦ they refuse to provide a specimen of blood or urine as required, or ◦ without reasonable excuse, they refuse to consent to a laboratory test of a specimen of blood that has been taken Causing

Causing death by driving while disqualified Section 3ZC of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) creates the offence of causing death by driving while disqualified. This offence is indictable only and carries the most severe potential sentence (see below: Sentencing for causing death while driving offences committed while unlicensed, uninsured or disqualified). The offence of causing death by driving while disqualified is committed when: • a person causes the death of another by driving a motor vehicle on a road, or • at the time of causing the death, the driver was driving while disqualified contrary to RTA 1988, s 103(1)(b) RTA 1988 defines a 'motor vehicle' as a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road. The term 'road' is defined in RTA 1988 as including any highway and any other road to which the public has access, including bridges over which a road passes. Causing serious injury by driving while disqualified Where there has not been a death but rather

The offence of causing fear or provocation of violence The offence of causing fear or provocation of violence (threatening behaviour) is an offence created by section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA 1986). The offence can only be tried summarily in the magistrates' court. There are similar public order offences that may also be relevant when considering threatening behaviour. For example, words or behaviour that are threatening or abusive, or the displaying of writing, signs or other visible representations which are threatening or abusive, within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress constitutes an offence under POA 1986, s 5(1). Furthermore, it is an offence under POA 1986, s 4A for a person to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour (including disorderly behaviour) with the intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress. See Practice Note: Intentional harassment, alarm or distress. For information on the offence of harassment under the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, see Practice Note: Harassment offences. Elements of the threatening behaviour

A simple caution, formerly known as a formal caution, is an interview with an enforcing authority such as the Environment Agency that can be an alternative to prosecution where the authority wishes to deal quickly with an environmental offence that it considers to be less serious.

Security against the occurrence of a particular event.

A caution against first registration (referred to as a ‘caution’ throughout this Practice Note) is a means of protecting an interest in unregistered land. A caution does not in itself create an interest in land and has no effect on the validity or priority of any interest the cautioner might have. It merely triggers HM Land Registry (HMLR) to give notice to a person who has applied for the caution (known as the cautioner) of any application for first registration of the legal estate in respect of the land subject to the caution. This gives the cautioner the opportunity to oppose such registration where they have reasonable cause. See HM Land Registry Practice Guide 3: Cautions against first registration for detailed guidance. A caution can be lodged by a cautioner to protect a wide variety of interests in unregistered land—for example: • where the cautioner has contracted to buy the land, to prevent it from being disposed of without their knowledge • where the cautioner is a creditor who has obtained a charging order from the court and

A caveat is a notice in writing that no grant is to be sealed without notice to the caveator.

A document which, when lodged with a court, will result in the lodger's legal agents being advised of any application against the lodger that might otherwise be granted without notice.

A person issuing a caveat.

This is a process lodged at courts in Scotland which can provide a person with notice'>advance notice of applications for winding-up; bankruptcy petitions issued in Scotland or orders for interim interdict (injunction)

Arbitration analysis: The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has recently delivered a decision reiterating the Cayman Islands’ pro-arbitration stance, dismissing an appeal brought by a general partner seeking to overturn a first instance decision staying proceedings brought in the Cayman Islands in favour of claims brought by certain limited partners in an LCIA arbitration. This decision once again highlights the pro-arbitration stance of the court in the Cayman Islands and confirms that absent very limited exceptions or an abuse of process, parties will be bound by their contractual obligation to arbitrate. Written by Ben Hobden, partner and co-head of Cayman Islands Litigation and Insolvency, Harneys.