Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Mar 2011, 9:04 am
In Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd Tugendhat J had stated that whatever definition of what is defamatory was adopted, ‘it must include a qualification or threshold of seriousness, so as to exclude trivial claims’. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 11:55 pm
R (on the Application of AC) v Bershire West Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 247 – Read judgment. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 6:26 am
http://tinyurl.com/4hkpwkm (Felix Hofer) Social Media Data and the Cloud - The Omnipresent eDiscovery Challenge (Podcast) - http://tinyurl.com/4q4atpa (ACEDS) Solid-State Disk Behavior Underlying Digital Forensics - http://tinyurl.com/4mvbbfm (Robert Geselter) This Data Isn’t Dull. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 11:58 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hassan Abdi and Afrah Khalaf [2010] EWHC 3083 (Admin) The Court of Appeal decided that time spent appealing against deportation counts in assessing whether an individual has been detained for an unreasonably long period. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 4:22 pm
I have recently dealt in detail with the position under the English law in comparison to the stronger protections in the United States. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 7:16 am
In the United States, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 1:31 am
I have recently dealt in detail with the position under the English law in comparison to the stronger protections in the United States. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 2:08 am
Geo V Hamilton Inc., No. 10-2329 (3d Cir. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 8:42 pm
Dubin v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 3:29 am
(s.2(2)) The test has been long-established, and was stated by Lord Diplock in Attorney General v English[1980] AC 116 at 141H-142C: If, as in the instant case, and probably in most other criminal trials upon indictment, it is the outcome of the trial or the need to discharge the jury without proceeding to a verdict that is put at risk, there can be no question that that which in the course of justice is put at risk is as serious as anything could be. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 12:39 am
Ltd ([2008] 1 AC 1), and on the judgment of Lord Neuberger MR in Imerman v Tchenguiz ([2010] EWCA Civ 908). [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 4:07 pm
Rix LJ also referred to the distinction drawn by Baroness Hale in Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34, [2007] 1 AC 224 between “the ordinary banter and badinage of life and genuinely offensive and unacceptable behaviour”. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Back in Doherty v Birmingham [2008] UKHL 57; [2009] 1 AC 367 Lord Hope said at [20] that: "I am not convinced that the Strasbourg Court-which did not hear oral argument in McCann -has fully appreciated the very real problems that are likely to be caused if we were to depart from the majority view in Kay in favour of that of the minority. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Back in Doherty v Birmingham [2008] UKHL 57; [2009] 1 AC 367 Lord Hope said at [20] that: "I am not convinced that the Strasbourg Court-which did not hear oral argument in McCann -has fully appreciated the very real problems that are likely to be caused if we were to depart from the majority view in Kay in favour of that of the minority. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:38 am
In Brown v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
In the oft quoted words of Willes J in East v Holmes ((1858) 1 F&F 347, 349), “If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless there was something to point to the particular individual“ In the leading English case of Knupffer v Express Newspapers ([1944] AC 116) the “Daily Express” published an article referring to “The quislings on whom Hitler flatters himself he can build a pro-German… [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 5:23 am
http://tinyurl.com/47udhb6 (Philip Gordon) Davis v. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 4:09 pm
Not all speech is protected by freedom of expression rights, and not all protest is legitimate in the eyes of the state. [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 10:59 pm
Not all speech is protected by freedom of expression rights, and not all protest is legitimate in the eyes of the state. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 10:00 pm
In proceedings by prisoners subsequently heard in Scotland (Smith v Scott [2007] SC 345), Northern Ireland (R v Secretary of State ex parte Toner and Walsh [1997] NIQB 18) and in England and Wales (Chester v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439) the relevant Secretary of State has expressly accepted that the ban on prisoner voting is incompatible with the ECHR. [read post]
