A position where the price for immediate delivery for an investment is higher than the price for the same thing in the future (contrary to the usual expectation).

Evidence of prior conduct that suggests the defendant has a tendancy towards crimes of a similar nature to the instant case or to be untruthful.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 101(1)(e) The section 101(1)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), also known as ‘gateway E’, permits evidence of a defendant's bad character to be introduced by a co-defendant if the evidence has ‘substantial probative’ value in respect of an ‘important matter in issue’ between the defendant and co-defendant. Only a co-defendant (either in their own evidence or by way of cross-examining a witness) can adduce evidence of bad character under gateway E. It is important to note that neither CJA 2003, s 101(3) or section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (exclusion of unfair evidence) apply to evidence adduced by a co-accused. However, a judge does have the power to exclude evidence under CJA 2003, s 111 where the application by a co-accused is deliberately late in an attempt to ambush their co-defendant (see R v Musone). The definition of 'bad character' is set out in CJA 2003, s 98. It includes evidence of a defendant's previous convictions. See Practice Note: Admissibility

Corporate Crime analysis: A case concerning police evidence and the alleged bad character of an appellant highlights concerns that such opportunities can have the unintended consequence of denying a fair trial. Joel Bennathan QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, examines the impact of an overzealous judge and the need for caution in issues of bad character.

IP analysis: This case represents the first time since the Supreme Court’s judgment in SkyKick v Sky (SkyKick) that a trial court has considered lack of intention to use a trade mark as a ground of invalidity falling within section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994). The court considered the principles set out in SkyKick, with a key focus being the evidential burdens of the parties in such a case. The court held that the defendants had not rebutted the presumption of good faith in one respect but had in another. The claimant had not filed evidence to justify its position on the point where the presumption had been rebutted. The bad faith issue was one of many in the case. The others (summarised at para [22]) were issues of trade mark infringement and passing off. Those issues involved the routine application of well settled principles to the facts as found. This Case Analysis does not deal with those points. Written by Michael Smith, barrister at Three Stone Chambers.

See Good leaver.

Badgering the witness describes aggressive, oppressive or repetitive questioning of a witness by an advocate, going beyond proper cross-examination and amounting to intimidation or harassment. It typically involves hectoring tone, bullying, unnecessary repetition, or questions designed more to unsettle or humiliate the witness than to test their evidence.In the UK and Ireland, “badgering the witness” is not usually a defined statutory term but a descriptive expression used in criminal and civil trials. Control of such conduct rests with the trial judge (or, in some tribunals, the chair), who has an overriding duty to ensure a fair trial and protect witnesses from improper questioning.If questioning is held to be badgering, the judge may intervene, direct counsel to move on, disallow particular questions, give the jury a warning, or in extreme cases consider contempt of court or professional misconduct implications. Rules of evidence, judicial guidance on vulnerable witnesses, and professional conduct codes across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland all prohibit oppressive or improper cross-examination, and the practical approach is broadly consistent across these jurisdictions.

1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Bahrain merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Bahrain? Bahrain’s merger control regime was refined by Ministerial Decision No. 72 of 2019 on the regulations governing economic concentration (Decision No. 72 of 2019), which introduced clear thresholds for market dominance and established mandatory pre-approval requirements for qualifying transactions. This decision complements Law No. 31 of 2018 with respect to the Promotion and Protection of Competition (Law No. 31 of 2018), providing a more structured framework for regulating economic concentrations. Since then, there are no ‘hot’ merger control issues currently in Bahrain. 2. Under Bahrain merger control law, is the control test the same as the EU concept of ‘decisive influence’? If not, how does it differ and what is the position in relation to 'minority shareholdings'? The Bahraini legislator, through Decision No. 72 of 2019 on the regulations governing economic concentration, defines control as a situation where a single undertaking holds more than 40% of

A contract for sale.

Key elements of bai salam As discussed in more detail in the Practice Note: The structure and required elements of a bai salam transaction, in particular with regard to some of the differing views amongst Shari'ah schools of thought, there are some key conditions for a valid bai salam contract: • payment of the purchase price by the buyer to the seller in full at the time the contract is made and the sale is effected • exact, unambiguous specification of the quality and quantity of the asset to be delivered, generally by reference to recognised trade standards with all possible details expressly mentioned • the contract must not be for a particular or unique asset, and • clear terms of delivery, in particular date and place Certain additional requirements for a parallel bai salam must be met: • the parallel bai salam contract must be entirely independent of and separate to the first contract. Each party's rights, obligations and liabilities are separate under each respective contract • delivery of the asset under

Bail is the right to be released from custody before the case is concluded, or sentence is passed, assuming there is no risk of absconding or committing further offences while on bail or attempting to interfere with witnesses or otherwise pervert the course of justice.

A bail condition is a restriction imposed at a bail hearing by a judge, necessary to prevent the risk of the defendant from failing to return to custody, committing further offences while on bail, or attempting to pervert the course of justice while awaiting trial or sentence.