Significant harm meaning

How a sentence is reached When passing sentence, the court typically weighs the statutory sentencing range, the relevant Sentencing Council (SC) guidance—including any offence‑specific guideline—the overarching guidance, and sentencing authorities from the Court of Appeal. The SC’s offence‑specific or general guideline provides a mandatory step‑by‑step method the court must apply. See Practice Notes: Sentences imposed following conviction and Sentencing Council General Guideline—Overarching Principles. In most cases the court will consider: the appropriate starting point within the Sentencing Guidelines any aggravating features of the offence mitigation and the defendant’s personal circumstances any discount for a guilty plea whether the offender is dangerous and presents a significant risk of harm through further specified offences any suitable ancillary orders the totality of the sentence to ensure proportionality to the offending behaviour Mitigation The SC’s guidelines, together with the general guideline, contain non‑exhaustive examples of mitigating factors that may lead the court to reduce the sentence...

According to the Department for Business and Trade, a former Insolvency Service employee, who remains anonymous, supplied The Times, the Financial Times and Sky News in November 2023 with confidential details about the agency’s plan to seek director disqualification against Greensill. The government’s High Court defence, dated 29 April 2024 and now public, asserts this constituted unlawful processing of the Australian businessman’s personal data under the UK GDPR, together with a breach of confidence and misuse of private information. However, the government rejected the contention that the disclosures caused Greensill “significant anxiety and distress”. By then, the department argued, the ex-Citigroup and Morgan Stanley banker’s standing as a businessman was “already significantly, if not irreparably, damaged”. Greensill issued proceedings against the government in March 2024, seeking damages and compensation, contending that the Insolvency Service’s investigation was “an obviously confidential and private process”. He alleges the staff member, referred to only as X, infringed his privacy by tipping off the media about the scope and key areas of focus in the...

Safeguarding customer funds Under the Payment Service Regulations 2017 and the Electronic Money Regulations 2011, FCA-registered payments firms and electronic money institutions—together, payments firms—must protect customers’ money by maintaining appropriate safeguarding arrangements. This safeguarding framework exists to prevent harm to customers, such as shortfalls or delays in redemption, and to reduce the risk of detriment. The need is acute during a wind-down or insolvency, particularly given that money held by payments firms is not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The sums entrusted to such firms are significant and continue to grow: the FCA records that electronic money institutions alone held a combined £18bn of customer funds in 2023, up from £11bn in 2021. Nevertheless, the FCA considers there to be widespread failure across payments firms to implement suitably robust safeguarding practices, and it fears that this leaves customers’ funds at risk. The regulator also expresses concern about recent UK court judgments on how the safeguarding regime operates upon insolvency, including the 2022 decision of the Court of...

The European Commission has circulated a revised proposal for an EU Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive, intended to complement the new AI Act, to EU governments as well as lawmakers charged with examining it closely. The update, viewed by MLex, chiefly brings the AI Liability Directive into line with the AI Act’s final wording, the flagship statute passed earlier this year that sets out product-safety requirements for AI. However, fresh language could markedly widen the responsibility borne by those who deploy a risky AI application and bring it into actual operation. The aim of the AI Liability Directive is to standardise certain elements of court actions brought under national fault-based liability systems. Originally tabled by the commission in September 2022 (see here), the plan was paused while EU policymakers prioritised completing the AI Act...

This tracker tool tracks and summarises key new legislation and consultations in England and Wales linked to contamination, pollution and environmental permitting. In England and Wales, the following regimes govern contamination, pollution and environmental permitting: Contaminated land regime under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990): addresses land contamination that is causing, or where there is a significant possibility of causing, significant harm to human health (including property), living organisms, interference with ecological systems, or impacts on controlled waters. The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/810, and the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (Wales) Regulations 2009, SI 2009/995 (EDR): apply to environmental damage, defined as damage to: a protected species or natural habitat that has a significant adverse effect on achieving or maintaining the favourable conservation status of that species or habitat a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) where the integrity of the site is adversely affected surface water...

This Practice Note addresses negligence, occupiers’ liability, trespass against the person and nuisance arising from animal-related claims. For assistance on proceedings issued under the Animals Act 1971 (AA 1971), consult Practice Notes: Liability under the Animals Act 1971—dangerous species and Liability under the Animals Act 1971—all other animals. This Practice Note reviews the alternative bases of claim. For a summary indicating which causes of action might be relevant, see Practice Note: Types of claim involving animals. Negligence The orthodox rules of negligence govern those who keep or manage animals. Anyone responsible for an animal owes a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. It applies to owners and to those controlling animals in their care. Negligence claims remain significant because the statutory requirements for liability under the AA 1971 can be hard to meet. The extent of any duty of care turns on the facts, including the animal’s past conduct, its potential to cause injury, and the circumstances in which the harm occurred...

The lawful grounds for processing personal data under UK GDPR An organisation may not handle personal data because it chooses to. It may do so only when one of the bases in Article 6(1) of Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679, United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), is met. These are often described as the ‘lawful grounds’, ‘legitimate grounds’ or ‘conditions’ for processing. Processing personal data without a lawful basis breaches the UK GDPR. Non-compliance can cause significant reputational harm, claims from affected data subjects, and fines up to £17.5m or up to 4% of total worldwide annual turnover. Under the UK GDPR, there are seven potentially lawful grounds for processing personal data: the data subject has provided consent for their personal data to be processed for one or more specific purposes—see below: Consent processing is necessary for performing a contract to which the data subject is party, or to take steps at the data subject’s request before entering into a contract—see below: Performance...

1 Introduction 1.1 Bribery and corruption persist as significant problems in global commerce, notwithstanding numerous targeted initiatives to deter them. They inflict serious harm on communities where they arise. They: 1.1.1 divert funds and other assets away from those most in need; 1.1.2 impede economic and social progress; 1.1.3 harm enterprise, notably by pushing up the price of goods and services. 1.2 Our statutory duties are chiefly set by the Bribery Act 2010 (BA 2010). BA 2010 applies to us as a UK organisation if bribery happens anywhere within our operations. 1.3 We conduct our business [ es ] with integrity, and in a frank and principled way. Each of us must act to ensure [ insert organisation’s name ] stays free from bribery or corruption. 1.4 This policy is central to that aim. It is fully endorsed by the [ insert, eg Board ]. It explains the measures everyone must follow to stop bribery and corruption in our...

1 Introduction 1.1 Bribery and corruption continue to pose a significant challenge in global commerce, notwithstanding extensive measures to curb them. Our legal duties stem chiefly from the Bribery Act 2010. As a UK company, that legislation applies to us wherever bribery arises within our business [ es ]... 1.2 Such practices harm the communities where they happen, siphoning funds and other assets from those most in need and obstructing economic and social progress. They also harm enterprise, notably by driving up the price of goods and services... 1.3 The Company conducts its business [ es ] with integrity, and in a transparent and principled way. We must all act collectively to keep our [ business remains OR businesses remain ] free from bribery or corruption. This policy forms a vital part of that endeavour. It sits as the personal responsibility of [ enter position, eg the CEO ], carries the full backing of the Company’s board, and reflects [ enter position, eg the CEO ]’s pledge...

1.1 Failure to spot and handle conflicts, confidentiality and disclosure matters can seriously harm a law firm, such as: 1.1.1 Clients may not receive the standard of service they are entitled to, leading to complaints or negligence claims; 1.1.2 Our standing could be harmed; 1.1.3 The firm, or individuals within it, could be: (a) Subject to disciplinary action by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) or another regulator, potentially resulting in fines, disqualification or other penalties; (b) Faced with third-party court claims for injunctions preventing us from acting on a matter and/or for damages. 1.2 An own interest conflict arises where our obligation to act in any client’s best interests on a matter clashes with the personal or commercial interests of the firm or a member of staff on that or a related matter—or there is a significant risk of such a clash. We must never act where an own...