Search for: "Lord v. State"
Results 3241 - 3260
of 4,051
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2010, 9:29 pm
The reasoning, thanks to Justice Blackmun's obiter dictum in Jones v. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 4:15 am
It is clear that the test which the court must apply to ensure that the proceedings are not prohibitively expensive remains in a state of uncertainty. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 12:25 am
As we have reported in a post last week Lord Neuberger’s made general comments about anonymity in court proceedings in the court of appeal. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 8:55 am
Chester v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1439 (17 December 2010) – Read judgment The Court of Appeal has rejected a claim by a man convicted of raping and murdering a seven-year-old girl that the court should grant him the right to vote. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 8:37 am
The principle, sometimes called the rule on maintenance of capital, was authoritatively stated by the House of Lords in Trevor v Whitworth, and has been subsequently applied both by the courts and in statutory provisions. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 7:48 am
Caslavsky, 45 B.C.A.C. 62, and stated the following: A more recent case from this Court along similar lines is Brucks et al. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 9:45 pm
PF appealed to the House of Lords, although she did not pursue her complaints under Article 2. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 11:07 am
Lords Hope, Rodger and Walker, Lady Hale and Lord Brown will consider whether the condition attached to claiming a state pension credit, of the right of [...] [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 3:17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Jonathan Djanogly, replied for the Government. [read post]
12 Dec 2010, 10:00 pm
We think this view leads to a state of uncertainty and gives primacy to the rule of EU law over the national constitutional rule of law. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 3:35 am
Although Mr Seal ultimately lost, his claim – and in particular a strong dissenting judgment by Baroness Hale in the House of Lords – highlights the tricky line the state must tread in relation to people with mental health problems in relation to their access to justice. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 11:35 pm
Lord Triesman v UTV Media (GB), 9 Dec 2010. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 4:00 am
The appellant derived this “necessary implication” test from the context of human rights or the principle of legality referred to in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 and R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] UKHL 21, [2003] 1 AC 563, where the question was whether section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 overrode legal professional privilege, a common law right… [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 4:48 am
Noting the very high threshold for review imposed by the Wednesbury test (see criticisms of this by the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26,[2001] 2 AC 532 and the Strasbourg Court in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom (1999) 29 EHRR 493, para. 138) the Committee considered that the application of a “proportionality principle” by the courts in E&W could provide an adequate… [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 2:54 am
And, now that election decisions can be judicially reviewed, the decisions could ultimately reach the Supreme Court – echoing the United States Supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore a decade ago – or even the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of expression grounds. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 11:21 am
A TRANSCRIPT OF THE COMMENTARY IN THE FIRST TELEVISED UK TRIAL R V KEVIN PIETERLAG AND JOHNNY ‘ROBBERS’ ROBBER Charon QC: Good morning everybody…Welcome to The Old Bailey on day one of a five day trial in the case of R v Kevin Pieterlag and Johnny ‘Robbers’ Robbers. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm
With human health at the apex of this system, the assessment of the measures adopted to secure any of these aims is not, as Lord Steyn suggested in R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532, a ”one size fits all” test. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 4:56 pm
After all, as he House of Lords observed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, freedom of expression is a right without “an effective rule of law is not possible”. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 12:50 pm
Also, there is a fear that, without accountability for errors by those in the practice of medicine, opportunities for correction of unacceptable medical care may be lost.Expert WitnessesOne of the more recent state Supreme Court decisions, Freed v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 12:21 am
Lord Phillips also re-named the defence as “honest comment” (as opposed to Court of Appeal in BCA v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, which favoured “honest opinion” [35]) and called on the Law Commission to consider and review the present state of the defence. [read post]
