Search for: "AC v. State"
Results 1541 - 1560
of 1,882
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2010, 10:08 pm
Right to liberty: Entick v Carrington (1765) Prohibition on retrospective liability: Philips v Eyre (1870) 6 QB 1 (see our recent post on this principle) Prohibition of torture has long been a “constitutional principle”, according to Lord Bingham in A & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 2 AC 221 The right to fair trail, defined in the Magna Carter as “due process of the law” (Chapter 29 of the 1354… [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 7:38 am
See, e.g., Reid L. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 10:00 pm
Although the precise circumstances of the instant applications appeared not to have previously arisen, in analogous circumstances where a conviction was based on the law as it was understood to be, a subsequent change in the law would not be a valid ground for leave to appeal out of time unless substantial injustice had been done: R v Benjafield (Karl Robert) (Confiscation Order) (2002) UKHL 2, (2003) 1 AC 1099. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 8:32 am
He discusses McDonald v. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 8:05 am
A.C. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:38 pm
[Cross-posted with the ACS Blog] [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:00 am
(Originally posted on ACS Blog.) [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 9:38 am
United States, 295 U. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 11:32 am
of State. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 3:31 am
In Alden v Maine, 527 US 706, the Supreme Court of the United States found that State sovereign immunity is "implicit in the constitutional design. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 2:00 am
Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396). [read post]
20 Jun 2010, 8:02 pm
Massachusetts v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 6:26 am
” Barclay v United States, 443 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 4:11 am
By way of introduction, Lord Brown noted that the majority in the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ [2008] 1 AC 385 held that deprivation of liberty might take a variety of forms other than classic detention in prison or strict arrest. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 11:06 pm
As Lord Bingham put it in R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC, HL [31] The purposes of such an investigation are clear: to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if unjustified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their relative may at… [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm
In the alternative – if that analysis was wrong – the judge found that the decision to make and affirm the Order must be part of a process of determination of the bank’s civil rights of the kind analysed by Lord Clyde in R (Alconbury) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2003] 2 AC 295 in paragraphs 145 to 160. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:15 am
As the Privy Council said in Gleaner v Abrahams ([2004] 1 AC 628) “[Defamation] damages often serve not only as compensation but also as an effective and necessary deterrent. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 4:02 am
Final administrative determination for the purposes of determining the statute of limitationsSkiptunas v State of New York, App. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 7:11 am
Also at the Sentencing Law Blog, Berman examines the question that the Court certified to the Montana Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 11:01 pm
Bill Yeoman, Guy V. [read post]
