Search for: "Person v. R " Results 21 - 40 of 42,797
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2010, 2:35 am by traceydennis
Ahmed and others v HM Treasury (JUSTICE intervening); al-Ghabra v Same; R (Youssef) v Same “In introducing a test of reasonable suspicion that a person was involved in terrorism as the basis for making an asset-freezing order against him under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 the Treasury exceeded its powers under the enabling provisions of s 1 of the United Nations Act 1946. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 4:23 am by michael
R v Ahmed; [2010] WLR (D) 219 “The act of procuring the miscarriage of a woman’s child did not, by itself, amount to an offence known to English law. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 8:41 am
R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 1900; [2008] WLR (D) 294 “A person called to the Bar who had not found a place in chambers but fell within para 206.1 of the Code of Conduct was not thereby ‘authorised’ by the Bar Council to practise as a member of the profession whose members the Bar Council regulated for purposes of s 84 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; accordingly he was apt to be prosecuted for providing immigration advice or immigration… [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 9:33 am by michael
R (Rickets) v Basildon Magistrates’ Court [2010] WLR (D) 186 “If goods were left outside a charity shop it could be inferred that it was the owner’s intention to donate them as a gift to the shop, and they were not abandoned but remained the property of the person who deposited them until taken into the control or possession of the charity; and if some other person removed the goods in the meantime he might be found to have committed an offence… [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 2:29 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
For judgment, please download:[2014] UKSC 5For Court’s Press Summary, please download: Court’s Press SummaryFor a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII The post New Judgment: R v Mackle (Nos. 1, 2 and 3), and R v McLaughlin (Northern Ireland) [2014] UKSC 5 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 1:30 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
The court further held that the trial judge had not been wrong to dismiss the appellant’s submission on non-prosecution assurances and had correctly applied the test in R v Abu Hamza [2007] QB 659. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 2:38 am
R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWCA Civ 92; [2009] WLR (D) 62 “The Director of Public Prosecutions did not act unlawfully in failing to publish detailed guidance as to the circumstances in which individuals would or would not be prosecuted for assisting another person to commit suicide. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 2:41 am
R (Bunce) v Pensions Appeal Tribunal and another [2009] EWCA Civ 451; [2009] WLR (D) 134 “The Pensions Appeal Tribunal did not, on an appeal against the defence secretary's interim assessment of the degree of a person's disability under s 5(1) of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943, as amended, have jurisdiction to challenge the existence [...] [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:26 am by Anita Davies
At first glance the question facing the Supreme Court in R v Gnango, heard on the 11th and 12th July, reads like a particularly complex examination problem. [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 8:36 am
R (M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52; [2008] WLR (D) 292 “A person's need for a refrigerator in which to keep medication did not amount to "need of care and attention" within s 21(1)(a) of the National Assistance Act 1948 (as amended) so as to entitle him to residential accommodation. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 9:50 am
R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] EWHC 2565; [2008] WLR (D) 337 “The Director of Public Prosecutions did not act unlawfully in failing to publish detailed guidance as to the circumstances in which individuals would or would not be prosecuted under s 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 for assisting another person to commit suicide. [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 1:19 am
R v W Stevenson & Sons (A Partnership) [2008] EWCA Crim 273; WLR (D) 60 “Legislation could render a partnership criminally liable as a separate entity from its individual partners. [read post]