Bail Bonds in Sanford – European Court of Justice lays down the law on Kodipocalypse

Source     : The Register News
By             : Andrew Orlowski
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

European Court of Justice lays down the law on Kodipocalypse

Europe’s highest court has made it easier for member states to halt the sale of media sticks with preloaded pirate streaming links and add-ons. The past few months have seen significant growth in pre-configured streaming boxes or USB sticks. These use the Kodi platform, an open-source player, configured by a vendor with add-ons that enable access to pirate TV services.

The UK has approved realtime blocks by ISPs during popular Premier League games until the end of the English season to gauge the effectiveness of blocking the streams at source. Meanwhile, trading standards officers and police have launched raids on vendors. The European Court of Justice was invited to give its opinion on a Dutch district court case involving a vendor of one player, filmspeler.nl. The court today decreed that the vendor’s actions constituted a “communication to the public”.

This is a peculiar doctrine specific to European law, not found in the Berne Convention, which some of Europe’s top legal experts believe is based on a mistranslation. URLs were deemed not to be a “communication to the public” last September. It’s a cumbersome analog to the idea of secondary liability, which takes into account intent, as it did for Grokster in the US Supreme Court in 2005. But the advantage for legal wonks and lawyers in Europe is that they can continue to evolve the concept for years to come. Only a cynic would suggest that lawyers and legal academics profit from such confusion, so we won’t.

The ECJ decided that:
In the present case and having regard, in particular, to the content of the advertising of the multimedia player and to the fact that the main attraction of that player for potential purchasers is the pre-installation of the add-ons concerned, the Court finds that the purchaser of such a player accesses a free and unauthorised offer of protected works deliberately and in full knowledge of the circumstances.

The media player was clearly being sold for a profit, so that’s that, the court ruled.

Read more here : theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/ecj_kodi_addons/

Bail Bonds in Sanford – Supreme Court: Challenging Quick-Look Eligibility Denials

Source    : Patentlyo News
By            : Dennis Crouch
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Supreme Court – Challenging Quick-Look Eligibility Denials

A newly filed petition for writ of certiorari offers a substantial challenge to the quick-look eligibility decisions that have been so popular among district courts.  The challenge here is especially focused on no-evidence eligibility decisions that serve as a substitute for an obviousness determination. In the case, the claims of BBiTV’s U.S. Patent No. 7,631,336 have been repeatedly upheld as non-obvious before a Hawaii district court ruled them ineligible on summary judgment.  In its 103 analysis, the Hawaii court also denied summary judgment of obviousness – finding questions of material fact regarding whether (1) elements of the claims were found in the prior art or (2) PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine those elements.  In its simultaneous 101 decision, however, the court determined as a matter of law that those same elements were “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry” that lack the “inventive concept” required by Alice.  The decision was (as is now common) affirmed without opinion by the Federal Circuit.

The petition challenges the decision and the newly-popular approach of using eligibility as a shortcut to more difficult and fact-intensive obviousness analysis. The three three questions:
1. Evidence for Underlying Factual Findings: Whether the statutory presumption of validity set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 282 applies to claims challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as set forth by this Court in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P., 564 U.S. 91 (2011), when the ultimate legal conclusion relies upon underlying findings of fact, such as whether the additional novel and non-obvious elements of the claims are merely well-understood, routine, and conventional or whether they add an inventive concept.
2. Standard for Summary Judgment: Whether, unlike every other area of law involving motions for summary judgment, as set forth by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and its progeny, a district court may resolve material underlying fact disputes against the non-movant party on a summary judgment motion for lack of patent-eligibility under § 101.
3. Not All Abstraction Are Abstract: Whether the judicially-created exception for “abstract ideas” broadly includes any abstraction of a claim (including novel business practices or methods of organizing human activities) or only “fundamental” and “long-standing” (i.e., pre-existing) practices and methods, as recognized by this Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) and Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2356- 57 (2014).

The questions begin with the implicit understanding that, although a question of law, eligibility decisions are based upon a set of factual determinations that should be treated like any other factual determination by the court.  This approach is directly contrary to the approach often taken these days that follows Judge Mayer’s concurring opinion in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014). An important legal question here is how close the link should be between obviousness and eligibility.  Post-KSR and Alice, there does appear to be substantial connection between the obviousness analysis associated with combining-old-elements and the eligibility analysis of elements that are “well-understood, routine, and conventional.”  The two should often correlate, the court here may have the opportunity to explain the differences both in doctrine and procedure.

Read more here: patentlyo.com/patent/2017/04/supreme-challenging-eligibility.html

Bail Bonds in Sanford – Florida’s newest Supreme Court Justice has deep roots in Tallahassee

Source     : Tallahassee News
By             : Byron Dobson , Democrat senior writer
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Florida’s newest Supreme Court Justice has deep roots in Tallahassee

When former appellate Judge C. Alan Lawson is sworn in Wednesday as the Florida Supreme Court’s 86th justice, the ceremony not only marks a milestone in his legal career, it will be a testament to the Tallahassee role models he encountered along the way. Lawson, 55, credits the late Leon High School journalism teacher Judy Steverson with teaching him confidence in addressing important people and finding ease in asking “tough questions.” He credits being in the late Iona Smith’s class in logic and rhetoric at Leon for exposing him to Aristotle and Plato and the value of thought. It was at Tallahassee Community College that a class in business law taught by former Supreme Court Justice Fred Karl helped him crystallize his chosen profession. “It’s a little bit surreal having lived in the shadows of these important buildings in downtown Tallahassee, where the heads of government reside,” Lawson said, sitting in his chamber office. “Growing up, I was awed by it. I haven’t lost the sense of gratitude and awe of knowing that I’m here. It’s certainly not something I envisioned as a kid growing up in Tallahassee.”

‘Always unflappable’
Lawson’s family moved to Tallahassee when he was 2. His father, Charles Alan Lawson, worked as the Florida Interstate Compact administrator in the Florida Probation and Parole Commission. His mother, Velma, was a registered nurse at Tallahassee Memorial. They lived in Tallahassee’s Town and Country neighborhood, between Old Bainbridge Road and North Monroe Street. Dr. Alex “Steve” Steverson, owner of Bradfordville Animal Hospital, grew up with Lawson. His father, Alex Steverson Sr. and Lawson’s father were bunkmates in the Army.

Steverson and Lawson both attended First Baptist Church downtown.“He was always prepared, always unflappable,” said Steverson, a nephew of Judy Steverson’s. “His comments were always thoughtful. He never seemed to be out of sorts; always in control and steady.”

Steverson remembers the two of them working at the church’s summer camp. “He would challenge kids to ask him any question and he would answer,” he said. “That was pretty bold.” The popular high-school hangout at the time was Barnaby’s Pizza, then on North Monroe Street. “Alan drove an old beat up Mazda pickup. It broke down on us a couple of times.”Steverson said he wasn’t surprised his friend chose law as a career. He was a deep thinker and a natural wordsmith. “He is the epitome of what I see a good judge being.”

Hardworking and humble
Lawson entered Tallahassee Community College and earned an associate’s in science degree with honors and his EMT certification. He enrolled at Clemson University, where in 1983 he graduated with a degree in parks and recreation and tourism management, with an emphasis on natural resource management. After graduating with honors, he returned to Tallahassee. He worked briefly for the Gadsden County ambulance service before beginning law school at FSU. In addition to Karl, he also was influenced by the late Tallahassee attorney Bill Roberts. “I was fascinated by his career and Judge Karl’s career,” Lawson said. “I think they were the main two influences. “Getting a law degree would open up a lot of options,” he said. Current Supreme Court Justice Ricky Polston was in the same class with Lawson, who graduated second in his class. “Alan and I go all the way back to FSU law school when he impressed all of us, including the professors, with the sharpness of his intellect and his willingness to go the extra mile,” Polston said. “We are very fortunate to have him here.” Tallahassee attorney Eric Prutsman met Lawson 33 years ago in law school. They remain close friends today.“I remember him getting A’s in nearly every class,” Prutsman said. “He worked hard, studied and was the guy who always got the top scores on exams, but was humble about it.”

Read more here: tallahassee.com/story/news/2017/04/01/floridas-newest-supreme-court-justice-has-deep-roots-tallahassee/99877596/

Bail Bonds in Sanford – Crawford Co. woman taking legal action against jail

Source     : Whas 11 News
By             : Renee Murphy
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Crawford Co. woman taking legal action against jail

It all happened so quick. “I was shocked when I first saw it,” Justin Mills said. It was an instant two southern Indiana attorneys said crossed the line. “You can’t incarcerate people and treat them the way she was treated,” Larry Wilder said.

Larry Wilder and Justin Mills showed WHAS11 News video they said is from June at the Crawford County Jail. In the video, a woman is being taken inside the jail in handcuffs. Authorities said she was intoxicated and then she’s shown spitting at a deputy. The woman in cuffs, identified as Kathi Plaskett, has something placed over her mouth by deputies so she can’t spit again and is placed in a special chair.“When you see the video, you have to ask yourself is it the rule that you are allowed to knock someone to the ground, strike them in the face, take their knee and grind it into their back and grind their head in concrete,” Wilder said. “Was she wrong? Absolutely. Was he wrong? No question about it.”

Attorneys say Plaskett requested medical care in July from injuries sustained, captured by video and wasn’t granted an approval for medical assistance until October. WHAS11 News spoke with the chief deputy at the Crawford County Jail who says the sheriff denies any wrong- doing and said they couldn’t comment any further because Plaskett has pending criminal charges.

Her attorneys have filed a notice of their intent to file a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Department. “No one should be treated like that and so right is right [and] wrong is wrong.”Plaskett’s attorneys say she first encountered the sheriff’s deputies when they believe she called 911 saying she had been assaulted. In the video, she was brought into the sheriff’s department with her pants inside out. Plaskett is charged with criminal trespass and battery of an officer.

Read more here: whas11.com/news/local/indiana/crawford-co-woman-taking-legal-action-against-jail/381403722

Bail Bonds in Sanford – Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Meets With UC Berkeley Law Students, Faculty

Source     : Sanfrancisco CBS Local News
By             : Associated Press
Category  :Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Meets With UC Berkeley Law Students, Faculty

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is meeting with law students and law school faculty at the University of California, Berkeley. Sotomayor was scheduled to speak and take questions from law students at a forum Thursday.

The event comes as confirmation hearings are set to begin later this month for President Donald Trump’s nominee to the court, Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch would fill the seat that opened up when Justice Antonin Scalia died.

The court currently has only eight justices. Sotomayor was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009 and became the court’s first Hispanic justice when the U.S. Senate confirmed her later that year.

Read More : sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/03/09/supreme-court-justice-sotomayor-meets-uc-berkeley-law/

Bail Bonds in Sanford – Mental health patients’ emergency room detainment raises legal issues

Source     : Concord Monitor News
By             : ALLIE MORRIS
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Mental health patients’ emergency room detainment raises legal issues

In a highly unusual move, a judge asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to opine on whether holding patients in emergency rooms for weeks while they wait to be involuntarily committed to the state psychiatric hospital violates the law or patients’ constitutional rights. “This case presents issues of significant statutory and constitutional dimensions,” Judge Edwin Kelly, who heads the circuit court division, wrote in a filing last November. In a one-page order issued a month later, the court declined to take it up. But advocates say the legal question is only gaining importance as the waitlist to get into the state-run New Hampshire Hospital steadily rises. The list hit a record high last week when 68 people in psychiatric crisis sat in emergency rooms statewide waiting for treatment. Many patients are held there involuntarily and can go days or weeks in hospital holding rooms without any opportunity to challenge the decision in court.

“It is concerning to me,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire. “As Judge Kelly articulated in his order, you have people being detained who are not immediately having access to a judge, and immediately having access to a lawyer.” At issue is the state law governing involuntary commitments, which was written at a time when no one envisioned long waits for treatment, advocates say. Almost all patients sent to the state hospital are involuntarily committed, meaning doctors have deemed them a danger to themselves or others. Once an involuntary determination has been made in the emergency room, the patient can’t be released until a bed opens at New Hampshire Hospital. Since the wait can be days, or weeks, emergency rooms have effectively become psychiatric detention centers, some say.

Kelly’s questions to the court hinged on how the term “admission” is interpreted. State law requires any involuntary psychiatric patient get a probable cause hearing within three days of admission. In practice, the 72-hour clock starts once a patient has been admitted to New Hampshire Hospital, not the emergency room. It means patients can be held in hospital rooms for days or weeks without seeing a judge. Kelly questioned whether that could “violate the constitutional right to liberty and due process under the NH and U.S. constitutions.” In three cases cited in Kelly’s petition, the patients, identified by only their initials, waited in emergency departments for 14 or 15 days before getting to New Hampshire Hospital. The earliest that one of them saw a judge was 17 days after being approved for involuntary emergency commitment.

One patient, identified as T.D., firmly and repeatedly requested to be discharged, Kelly wrote. The patient didn’t get a hearing until 18 days after he went into an emergency room and was issued his first certificate for involuntary emergency admission, Kelly wrote. Andrew Dixon, who has a mood and a thought disorder, was brought to the emergency room in Rochester last year after he became aggressive and suicidal, his father said. After being approved for involuntary commitment, the 23-year-old spent two weeks in a 10-by-10-foot room at Frisbie Memorial Hospital waiting for a bed at the state hospital. “At least in a jail stay he would know the number of days and know when he was getting out,” said John Dixon, Andrew’s father. “There he had no idea, he was completely at the will of the system.” The situation is straining emergency rooms that have to take on the responsibility of housing patients. Concord Hospital’s so-called Yellow Pod, a holding area in the emergency room for psychiatric patients, has security on hand and doors that can lock.

“We can hold somebody against their will,” said Peter Evers, CEO and president at Riverbend Community Mental Health Services. “It’s a nightmare situation if you think about it.” Once patients have been approved for involuntary commitment, state law says they should “immediately” be taken to New Hampshire Hospital or another psychiatric unit approved by the state. In 43 percent of 2015 involuntary commitment cases, the patient was not transferred immediately to New Hampshire Hospital or other certified facilities, Kelly wrote. “The court was troubled by the delay in delivering these patients to a receiving facility,” Kelly wrote. “There is no construction of the word ‘immediately’ under which a delay of 14-15 days could apply.”So-called psychiatric boarding has drawn court challenges in other states. In 2014, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled the practice unlawful. No one appealed the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, leaving it an open question about what happens next. Kelly declined to comment for this story.

Read More : concordmonitor.com/judge-asks-superior-court-whether-psychiatric-boarding-violates-rights-8303741

Bail Bonds in Sanford – Attacks on judges undermine law – Supreme Court president

Source     : BBC News
By             : Press Release
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Attacks on judges undermine law – Supreme Court president

The president of the UK’s Supreme Court has criticised politicians for not doing enough to defend judges following a row over the Brexit legal challenge. Lord Neuberger said politicians did not speak out quickly or clearly enough and some media attacks had been unfair. He said unjustified attacks on the judiciary undermined the rule of law.

After the government lost the Article 50 case at the High Court, a Daily Mail headline called the three judges in the case “enemies of the people”. Lord Neuberger, who retires in September, was speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme a month after the Supreme Court ruled that only Parliament, not ministers, had the power to trigger the UK’s exit from the EU because that was where laws were made. The Daily Mail’s front page story was published when the government lost the first stage of the legal battle at the High Court last November. That story sparked a furious row with critics, including MPs from all parties, accusing Liz Truss, the lord chancellor and justice secretary, of not standing up for an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court, the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases – and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland – hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

Its justices also sit as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and as such will occasionally hear appeals against the death penalty from Commonwealth countries. In an average year, the Supreme Court hears about 90 appeals and makes about 80 judgements on important issues of law.

‘Ultimate guardians’
In his interview, Lord Neuberger did not single out any newspaper or politician, but said: “We [judges in general] were certainly not well treated. One has to be careful about being critical of the press particularly as a lawyer or judge because our view of life is very different from that of the media. “I think some of what was said was undermining the rule of law.” Asked whether politicians had responded quickly enough to defend the judiciary and rule of law, Lord Neuberger said: “They were certainly vocal enough quickly enough after our hearing [in the Supreme Court].   “After the [High] Court hearing. I think they could have been quicker and clearer. But we all learn by experience, whether politicians or judges. It’s easy to be critical after the event. They were faced with an unexpected situation from which like all sensible people they learned.” Lord Neuberger said that undermining the judiciary also undermined the rule of law as judges were “the ultimate guardians” of it. “The rule of law together with democracy is one of the two pillars on which our society is based,” he added. “And therefore if, without good reason, the media or anyone else undermines the judiciary that risks undermining our society. “The press and the media generally have a positive duty to keep an eye on things. But I think with that power comes the degree of responsibility.”

Read More : bbc.com/news/uk-38986228

Seminole County Bail Bonds – A Few Bad Apples, Or The Fruits Of A Poisonous Tree?

Source    : Huffington Post News
By            : Lorenzo Johnson
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

A Few Bad Apples, Or The Fruits Of A Poisonous Tree

Society views a courtroom as a place where justice is administered by agents of our criminal justice system. Since 1989, there have been almost 2000 exonerations and counting. In 2014, a record-setting 137 exonerations took place—only to be outdone in 2015 with 149. The statistics for 2016 will be coming out any day. Should society view exonerations as mistakes that were corrected? In 75% of these exonerations, prosecution misconduct was the cause of the wrongful conviction. Considering wrongful convictions as mistakes is like saying that fish don’t live in water. You don’t get large numbers of wrongful convictions without significant misconduct by prosecutors. California has recently started taking this problem seriously. California Assemblywoman Patty Lopez (D) introduced bill (AB 1909) which makes the withholding or falsifying of evidence by prosecutors a felony in the state. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed it into law late last year. This law came about because of the corruption scandals that rocked Orange County. These scandals consisted of numerous cases of corruption by the prosecution office using tainted and false evidence to convict people. In one case, Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals found the Orange County District Attorney’s conduct so bad that he barred their entire office from the case. When you have California making it a felony for prosecutors who intentionally withhold evidence of innocence or favorable to a defendant, that’s when you know this misconduct is a serious problem.

I’m one of many innocent prisoners who commend California for not only recognizing this epidemic, but doing something about it. Are the rest of our states ready to follow California? When special bills have to be implemented to keep prosecutors honest in their work, we have to ask: how did we get here? Like the record numbers of exonerations, laws like California’s affirm the misconduct that has been taking place for a long time in the prosecutor’s office. Are all prosecutors guilty of misconduct? No, not at all. But when other prosecutors have knowledge of these “bad apples” and do nothing about it, what does this say about their integrity? Which brings us to this fact: Having prosecutors police themselves is like having a hungry fox guard the henhouse. In almost all of the cases of exoneration in recent years, prosecutors have fought tooth and nail to maintain these false convictions knowingly and intentionally.

The average exoneree spends between 13½ and 15 years in prison. Why? Because as we fight year after year to show our innocence, these prosecutors use their unlimited resources to maintain our convictions by any means necessary. Without criminal repercussions, misconduct by our government agents will continue, unfortunately. The prosecutors I speak of have no one to answer to, giving them free rein over anybody they choose to violate repeatedly. I’ve been a victim of continued misconduct while my appeal process has been “slow walked” by prosecutors who have known I was innocent from day one. I will close by saying that when a police officer is found guilty of misconduct they are immediately labeled a disgrace to our country. This is not the case at all with prosecutors. All we ask as innocent prisoners is to have fair criminal proceedings from start to finish. We shouldn’t have to spend decades in prison for crimes we never committed, while the people responsible continue to represent our criminal justice system.

Read More : huffingtonpost.com/lorenzo-johnson/a-few-bad-apples-or-the-fruits_b_14597290.html

Seminole County Bail Bonds – Texas Supreme Court ruling adds exception to disclosure law

Source    : My Statesman News
By            : Chuck Lindell
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Texas Supreme Court ruling adds exception to disclosure law

Texas Supreme Court ruling says attorney-client communication is too important for automatic disclosure. In another decision that has alarmed open government advocates, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday carved out a special exception for public access to government information involving communication with lawyers. The 7-2 ruling said protecting attorney-client privilege is too important to force governments to disclose such information, even if the Texas Public Information Act’s requirements aren’t followed.

Attorney-client privilege ensures the free flow of information and protects access to legal advice that is vital to better formulate government policy, said the opinion by Justice Eva Guzman. “Full and frank legal discourse also protects the government’s interest in litigation, business transactions and other matters affecting the public,” Guzman wrote. Writing in dissent, Justice Jeff Boyd said the ruling “obliterates” the only part of state law that requires governments to respond to requests for information involving attorneys.

“Nothing in the act supports the court’s decision to grant the privilege such special treatment. Nor do the court’s hyperbolic assertions that holding otherwise might cause the government to stop relying on legal advice,” Boyd said in an opinion joined by Justice Phil Johnson. The case involved separate requests by The Dallas Morning News for information on deals involving a landfill and convention center hotel. The city of Dallas, however, didn’t respond to the requests for 26 and 49 days, triggering separate lawsuits that were combined into one Supreme Court case.

To withhold most requested information, state law requires a government to seek approval from the attorney general’s office within 10 business days. If the government doesn’t respond in time, the Public Information Act requires the information to be disclosed unless a government can show a “compelling” reason to withhold. The law, however, doesn’t define compelling. In her analysis, Guzman said the benefits gained from protecting attorney-client communications provide compelling reasons to reject automatic disclosure as punishment for missing the 10-day deadline.

“When weighed against the need for expediency, the interests protected by the attorney-client privilege — and the irremediable consequences of disclosure — are demonstrably more compelling,” Guzman wrote. Joe Larsen, a Houston lawyer and board member of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said the ruling invests attorney-client privilege “with far too much importance” while removing any incentive for governments to promptly respond to requests for such information. “It is a perfect mechanism by which governments can withhold information from the public,” he said. The ruling “unfortunately” follows previous Supreme Court opinions that allowed governments to withhold information on contracts with third parties and closed public access to information from many organizations that receive public money, Larsen said. Bills filed in the current legislative session seek to reverse those rulings.

Read More : mystatesman.com/news/texas-supreme-court-ruling-adds-exception-disclosure-law/IQZnm4eK1xVekMw6GfhSIP/

Bail Bonds in Sanford – Term-time holiday case to be heard in Supreme Court

Source     : BBC News
By             : Susan Jaffe
Category : Bail Bonds in Sanford , Seminole County Bail Bonds

Term-time holiday case to be heard in Supreme Court

A council which lost a High Court case over fining a father who took his daughter on a term-time holiday will have its appeal heard at the Supreme Court later. Isle of Wight Council tried to fine Jon Platt £120 for taking his daughter to Florida during the school term. But magistrates backed the father, so the council appealed to the High Court, which again ruled in Mr Platt’s favour. The Department for Education is meeting the council’s legal costs.

The legal case rests on what constitutes “regular attendance”. Mr Platt has argued that even after the “once-in-a-lifetime” family trip to Disneyland, his daughter had 90% attendance at school and this argument was accepted by the High Court in May last year. At the time Lord Justice Lloyd Jones said the case “raised a point of law of general public importance”. After losing the case the council, at the request of Schools Minister Nick Gibb, applied to the Supreme Court for permission to launch a final legal challenge.

Toughest Rules
New guidelines came into force in England in 2013 making the policy on unauthorised term-time absences the toughest in the UK. The change followed concerns that some families had started to see going away in term-time as an entitlement. Under the rules, if a school declares an absence unauthorised, the council can fine each parent £60 per child – and this doubles to £120 if not paid within 21 days. Councils in England have varying policies on term-time holiday fines. Some issue thousands of fines – others barely any.

The case is forcing many to look again at the detail. Most parents simply pay the fines to avoid prosecution, but Mr Platt says thousands have contacted him for advice on fighting the fines. Many parents complain that the cost of going away in the school holidays can be four times as much as during term-time – but the government says there is clear evidence “that every extra day of school missed can affect a pupil’s chance of gaining good GCSEs, which has a lasting effect on their life chances”. A DfE spokeswoman said the government’s position remained that children should not be taken out of school “without good reason”. “That is why we have tightened the rules and are supporting schools and local authorities to use their powers to tackle unauthorised absence.” Ministers are also considering changing the law on term-time absences, depending on the outcome of the case.

Read More : bbc.com/news/education-38797775