10. Translate into English.

1. Апелляция подсудимого была отклонена, и приговор был приведен в исполнение.

2. Из-за тяжелого состояния подсудимого приговор – одиночное заключение – был заменен на более мягкий.

3. Судам иногда приходится разбирать иски граждан к соседям о доставлении неприятностей.

4. В результате халатности владельца стоянки женщине были нанесены тяжкие телесные повреждения.

5. Многие граждане считают, что закон не должен вмешиваться в семейные дела, особенно в воспитание детей.

6. Палата Лордов поддержала иск и оправдала подсудимого.

7. Данный закон ограничивает право сотрудников внутренних дел на отпуск по уходу за ребенком.

8. Главным основанием для подозрений в том, что купюры были подделкой, была толщина бумаги.

9. Мировые судьи должны отвечать некоторым требованиям, касающимся их репутации.

10. Семья добивается судебного запрета на публикацию книги.

TEXT 7 (20,240 signs).

Read and translate the text.

Gary slapper. The cases that changed britain. Part III: 1917-1954

1. Bowman and others V Secular Society Ltd May 15, 1917

This case was of considerable historic significance in supporting the freedom of a citizen to leave his wealth to whom he wanted. It is also solidified a great principle of British freedom of expression by ensuring that no legal disadvantage fell on those with dissentient ideas. The House of Lords upheld the lawfulness of a bequest to a company whose aim was opposing Christian dogma. In making this decision the Lords overruled precedents going back over 50 years. The next-of-kin of a testator challenged the bequest to the society on the grounds that its objects were unlawful. The House of Lords decided that there is nothing contrary to the policy of the law in an attack on or a denial of the truth of Christianity or any of its fundamental doctrines, provided that such an attack or denial is couched in temperate language and did not constitute blasphemy as defined by the common law.

2. Phillips V Brooks Ltd April 12, 1919

This is a classic case in the field of contract law. It was an alarm bell for any star-struck retailers prone to be a bit too impressed by any display self-importance. A man bought pearls and rings worth £3,000 from a jeweller’s shop in Wardour Street, London after passing himself off as a wealthy gentleman from St James’s Square. The cheque was dishonoured – the man was in fact an imposter named North, who pawned one of the rings for £350. After the jeweller sued, the court held that as the jeweller intended to make a contract with the man in the shop, even though he was not who he said he was, the property had legally passed to him. North was legally entitled to sell it to a pawnbroker. The jeweller’s attempt to get the ring back failed.

3. R V Hurst and other Justices of Sussex, ex party McCarthy November 10, 1923

This is, indirectly, one of the most often quoted cases in English law. It was famous for the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart’s comment: “There is no doubt that it is not merely of some importance, but of fundamental importance, that justice must be done, and be manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done”. A driving conviction was quashed because one of the magistrates’ clerks had an apparent conflict of interest: he worked for a law firm that acted for someone who was suing the driver in another case. No-one suggested the clerk behaved improperly, but it looked bad to have someone involved who was potentially partisan. The case cements a principle of fundamental significance to a civilised legal system: namely that all judicial processes must not just be fair but must never even be seen to raise a suspicion of unfairness. Public confidence in the law demands nothing less.