Search for: "Rodgers v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 328
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2017, 3:09 am by AIDAN WILLS MATRIX
Lord Rodger was not advancing a legal presumption which applied in all circumstances and, in referring to this passage, Tugendhat J was doing no more than stating that, while some members of the public equate suspicion with guilt, most would not [33]. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 3:09 am by AIDAN WILLS MATRIX
Invoking Lord Rodger’s “what’s-in-the-name” dicta from Re Guardian News and Media, Lord Sumption considered that the public interest extended to reporting Mr Khuja’s identity, which was not peripheral or irrelevant [34(5)]. [read post]
6 Aug 2017, 4:42 pm by INFORRM
Lord Rodger was not advancing a legal presumption which applied in all circumstances and, in referring to this passage, Tugendhat J was doing no more than stating that, while some members of the public equate suspicion with guilt, most would not [33]. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 3:10 am by INFORRM
The appellant was named and the case name is now Khuja (formerly known as PNM) v Times Newspapers. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 2:18 am by Aimee Denholm
The minority, take the view that Lord Rodger in In re Guardian News and Media Ltd was stating a legal presumption that courts should act on the basis that most people believe that someone charged with an offence is innocent until proven guilty, but that he had offered no evidence or authority to support such a presumption. [read post]