Supplementary updates
Supplements to textbooks often update the major work with which they are associated (particularly in Law).
//@versionType
//@versionOf
Updates are often indicated by having the same paragraph number as the paragraph in the main work that they update.
Where this occurs, OUP resupply the XML of the main work for reference, and you indicate the elements in the supplement which update those in the main work as follows:
- add the attribute versionType with the value
'update' - add the attribute versionOf with the id value of the element in the main work which is being replaced.
The element of the target will not always match the element in the update.
Example 1
Original paragraph from main work (for reference)
<div7 id="law-9780199694389-div7-0060381">
<p><enumerator role="paraNum">F12.14</enumerator> Of particular difficulty in directions
under the pre-Act law was the case where an aspect of the accused’s bad character
was admissible for a specific purpose and no other. This problem is largely avoided under
the CJA 2003 by decisions holding that evidence, once it passes through a gateway, may be
used for any purpose for which it is relevant. In <i>Highton</i> [2005] 1 WLR 3472 it was
held that evidence admitted under the gateway in s. 101(1)(g) of the CJA 2003 (following
an attack on another person’s character) was not to be used merely as a yardstick
by which to measure the credit to be given to the accused’s account: ‘the
use to which [evidence] may be put depends upon the matters to which it is relevant,
rather than upon the gateway through which it was admitted’. In <i>Edwards</i>
[2006] 1 WLR 1524 it was held, following <i>Highton</i>, that evidence admitted at the
accused’s own behest under s. 101(1)(b) could thereafter be used as evidence for
any relevant purpose. More crucially, <i>Highton</i> was said in <i>Campbell</i> [2007] 1
WLR 2798 to apply where evidence of the accused’s propensity to violence had been
properly admitted under s. 101(1)(d), and the issue was as to its use in relation to his
credibility (the converse of the situation in <i>Highton</i> itself). The Court of Appeal,
while accepting the general guidance in <i>Hanson</i> [2005] 1 WLR 3169 (see
<xrefGrp>
<xref ref="law-9780199694389-div7-0060380">F12.13</xref>
</xrefGrp>) stressed
the importance of relating the evidence to the facts of the case in a common-sense way,
bearing in mind that ‘ if the jury learn that a defendant has shown a propensity
to commit criminal acts they may well at one and the same time conclude that he
is guilty and that he is less likely to be telling the truth when he says that he is
not’.</p>
<p>...</p>
</div7>
Paragraph of supplement from manuscript
Desired XML Mark-up
<div7 versionOf="law-9780199694389-div7-0060381" versionType="update">
<p>
<enumerator role="paraNum">F12.14</enumerator> Further to Lafayette [2008] EWCA Crim
3238, see also Williams [2011] EWCA Crim 2198, in which evidence of certain previous
convictions had been admitted under the CJA 2003, s. 101(1)(g), following an attack on the
character of the police. It was held that, while the previous convictions had not been
relied upon as evidence of the accused’s propensity, there was a clear risk of the jury
treating them as such; that there was some force in the argument that the prejudicial
effect of admitting evidence of the convictions outweighed its probative value; but that
it might have been possible to reduce the prejudice to an acceptable level by a clear
direction as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted. The judge having
failed to give such a direction, and there having been a real possibility in the
circumstances of the case that that the jury had been improperly influenced by the
evidence, the appeal against conviction was allowed.</p>
</div7>
Example 2
Original paragraph from main work (for reference)
<div4 id="law-ocl-9780199667871-div4-511" doi="10.1093/law/9780199667871.024.0511">
<titleGroup id="law-ocl-9780199667871-titleGroup-689"><title>
<p>No interest in or benefit from the cartel.</p></title>
</titleGroup>
<div5 id="law-ocl-9780199667871-div5-512" doi="10.1093/law/9780199667871.025.0512"><p fullOut="Y">
<enumerator role="paraNum">5.014</enumerator> In <bibItem id="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItem-15256" class="case-ref" date="2003" idnumber="[2003] OJ L140/1 | [2003] 5 CMLR 683" legisType="nonMergerDecision" linkType="mentioned" party1="Seamless Steel Tubes" confirmation="requested" sameTarget="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItem-2435">
<bibItemTitle id="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItemTitle-9017">
<i>Seamless Steel
Tubes</i>
</bibItemTitle>
</bibItem>
<xrefGrp role="footnote">
<xref ref="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2128">
<sup>38</sup>
</xref>
</xrefGrp> the Court of
Justice held that, as far as the existence of an infringement of <bibItem id="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItem-15257" class="intinstr" date="1957" linkType="mentioned" sectRef="Title XXI Art.101" subClass="treaty" title="1957 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union" sameTarget="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItem-5886">Article 101</bibItem> is concerned, it
does not matter whether the conclusion of the agreement or concerted practice is in the
commercial interests of the undertakings concerned.<xrefGrp role="footnote">
<xref ref="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2129">
<sup>39</sup>
</xref>
</xrefGrp> Collusive
behaviour can still be prohibited even if the parties had other motives or pursued their
own interests.<xrefGrp role="footnote">
<xref ref="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2130">
<sup>40</sup>
</xref>
</xrefGrp> Similarly, it is not necessary to show that a
member of the cartel profited or gained in some other way from the cartel.<xrefGrp role="footnote">
<xref ref="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2131">
<sup>41</sup>
</xref>
</xrefGrp> The fact that the members of the cartel may not have
complied with their agreement, and that therefore the cartel was not successful, shows
that the agreement on prices was not implemented rather than that there was no agreement
on prices at all.<xrefGrp role="footnote">
<xref ref="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2132">
<sup>42</sup>
</xref>
</xrefGrp> It is not necessary to establish that the cartel
was efficient or well organised or that there was any punishment mechanism in
place.<xrefGrp role="footnote">
<xref ref="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2133">
<sup>43</sup>
</xref>
</xrefGrp>
</p><noteGroup>
<!-- Some footnotes suppressed for brevity -->
<note id="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2130" type="footnote">
<p>
<enumerator>40</enumerator>
<bibItem id="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItem-15405" class="case-ref" date="2008" idnumber="COMP/M.39188" legisNum="39188" legisType="mergerDecision" linkType="mentioned" party1="Bananas" sameTarget="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItem-280">
<bibItemTitle id="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItemTitle-9129">
<i>Bananas</i>
</bibItemTitle>
(<xrefGrp>n <xref ref="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2127">37</xref>
</xrefGrp>,
above) para 293</bibItem>.</p>
</note>
<note id="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2133" type="footnote">
<p>
<enumerator>43</enumerator>
<bibItem id="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItem-15409" class="case-ref" date="2008" idnumber="COMP/M.39188" legisNum="39188" legisType="mergerDecision" linkType="mentioned" party1="Bananas" sameTarget="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItem-280">
<bibItemTitle id="law-ocl-9780199667871-bibItemTitle-9133">
<i>Bananas</i>
</bibItemTitle>
(<xrefGrp>n <xref ref="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2127">37</xref>
</xrefGrp>,
above) para 292</bibItem>.</p>
</note></noteGroup>
</div5>
</div4>
Paragraph of supplement from manuscript
Fn 40 The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision in COMP/39188, Bananas, decn of 15 October 2008 in Case T-587/08, Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission, judgment of 14 March 2013 (reducing the fine but dismissing the appeal on liability); and Case T-588/08 Dole Food Company v Commission, judgment of 14 March 2013. On further appeal, Cases C-293 & C-294/13P, Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission, not yet decided; and Case C-286/13P, Dole Food Company v Commission, not yet decided.
Fn 43 The General Court upheld the Commission’s decision in COMP/39188, Bananas, decn of 15 October 2008 on other grounds: see also the update to Fn 40 above.
Desired XML Mark-up
<div5 id="law-ocl-97801123456789-div5-10" versionOf="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2130" versionType="update" doi="10.1093/law/91801123456789.025.0111">
<p>
<x:b xmlns:x="http://schema.oup.com/dita/examples">
<enumerator>Fn 40</enumerator></x:b> The General Court has upheld the Commission’s decision in <bibItem id="law-ocl-97801123456789-bibItem-11" class="case-ref" date="2008-10-15" idnumber="COMP/39188">COMP/39188, Bananas, decn of 15 October 2008</bibItem>; in
<bibItem id="law-ocl-97801123456789-bibItem-12" class="case-ref" idnumber="T-587/08" date="2013-03-14" party1="Fresh Del Monte Produce" party2="Commission">Case T-587/08,
Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission, judgment of 14 March 2013</bibItem> (reducing the
fine but dismissing the appeal on liability); and <bibItem id="law-ocl-97801123456789-bibItem-13" class="case-ref" date="2013-03-14" idnumber="T-588/08" party1="Dole Food Company" party2="Commission">Case T-588/08 Dole
Food Company v Commission, judgment of 14 March 2013</bibItem>. On further appeal, Cases
<bibItem id="law-ocl-97801123456789-bibItem-14" class="case-ref" idnumber="C-293|C-294/13P" party1="Fresh Del Monte Produce" party2="Commission">C-293
& C-294/13P, Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission, not yet decided</bibItem>; and
<bibItem id="law-ocl-97801123456789-bibItem-15" class="case-ref" idnumber="C-286/13P" party1="Dole Food Company" party2="Commission">Case C-286/13P, Dole Food Company v
Commission, not yet decided.</bibItem>
</p>
</div5>
<div5 id="law-ocl-97801123456789-div5-11" versionOf="law-ocl-9780199667871-note-2133" versionType="update" doi="10.1093/law/91801123456789.025.0112">
<p>
<enumerator>Fn 43</enumerator> The General Court upheld the Commission’s decision in
<bibItem id="law-ocl-97801123456789-bibItem-21" class="case-ref" date="2008-10-15" idnumber="COMP/39188" sameTarget="law-ocl-97801123456789-bibItem-11">COMP/39188,
Bananas, decn of 15 October 2008</bibItem> on other grounds: see also the <xrefGrp>
<xref ref="law-ocl-97801123456789-div5-10">update to Fn 40</xref>
</xrefGrp> in the same
chapter.</p>
</div5>