Search for: "R. v. R."
Results 101 - 120
of 145,062
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jan 2024, 10:47 am
HENDERSON v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 4:50 pm
In R. v. [read post]
23 May 2008, 2:53 am
R v Porter; [2008] WLR (D) 167 “There was no obligation upon an employer in the conduct of his undertaking to guard against those risks which were merely fanciful. [read post]
19 May 2008, 2:25 am
R v May [2008] UKHL 28; [2008] WLR (D) 151 “Where co-defendants had jointly received property as a result of criminal activity, each was liable to receive a confiscation order representing the entire value, as if he had acted alone, provided he had sufficient assets to meet the order. [read post]
29 May 2007, 2:34 am
R v. [read post]
29 May 2007, 2:37 am
R v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 2:33 am
R v. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 2:31 am
R v. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 8:25 am
R v M; [2008] WLR (D) 297 “Where a defendant in criminal proceedings was said to have breached a restraint order, imposed under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by making certain prohibited transactions a judge of the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try an application made by the prosecution for the defendant to be committed for contempt. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 10:30 am
R v Moulden [2008] EWCA Crim 2561; [2008] WLR (D) 352 “In s 6(2)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the words ‘proceedings before the Crown Court’ meant proceedings under a single indictment. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 2:19 am
R v. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 8:47 am
R v Sivaraman; [2008] WLR (D) 256 “There was no rule of law to the effect that, for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the amount of the benefit to each of the co-conspirators to a fraud must be taken as the whole amount of the loss attributable to the fraud: the amount of the benefit might vary as between the co-conspirators, and was to be determined on a common sense appreciation of the particular facts of the case. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 7:38 am
R v Ukpabio “There is no power outside the statutory provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to direct that a defendant can give evidence at his trial by live video link; however, in exceptional circumstances where it is appropriate for the defendant not to be present in court, there is power to direct that he can participate in his trial by other means such as live video link. [read post]
18 Feb 2008, 2:08 am
R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185; [2008] WLR (D) 47 “The offence of possessing a document containing information ‘of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’ was only committed if the document concerned was of a kind that was likely to provide practical assistance to such a person, rather than simply encouraging the commission of terrorist acts. [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 8:05 am
GREEN v. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 11:24 am
As such, it is very likely that R v Jordan will continue to play a role. [read post]
24 Jan 2019, 9:54 am
Im Anschluss setzt sich der Autor mit den Fragen auseinander, wie die Staatenverantwortlichkeit für die völkerrechtswidrige Handlung vor 100 Jahren sowie eine Wiedergutmachung auf völkerrechtlicher Ebene aussehen könnten. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 1:46 am
R (A) v Croydon London Borough Council; R (M) vLambeth London Borough Council [2009] UKSC 8; [2009] WLR (D) 342 "Where an asylum seeker’s claim to be under the age of 18 (and so entitled to accommodation under s 20(1) of the Children Act 1989) was disputed by the local authority who would have to provide [...] [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:26 am
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]
18 Jan 2017, 7:28 am
R v Simcox [1964] Crim LR 402), sadistic sexually motivated attacks (R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396) and random killings by those inappropriately released from psychiatric hospital. [read post]
