Search for: "Bingham v. United States"
Results 121 - 140
of 190
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2011, 11:01 pm
This language has been mirrored in a number of more modern legal sources, including Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture which 147 of the 192 members of the UN, including the UK, have signed up to (para 28) and the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:33 am
Possible relevance for Ireland Our Housing Act 1966 bears striking resemblance to the 1996 Act in the UK, especially inasmuch as a District Court judge is required (“shall”, s. 62; Dublin Corporation v. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 3:35 am
Seal v United Kingdom (Application no. 50330/07) – Read judgment The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the claim of a man detained by the police for 9 days under mental health law. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
The ECHR in McCann v UK (see our notes here and here) preferred Lord Bingham's approach. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
The ECHR in McCann v UK (see our notes here and here) preferred Lord Bingham's approach. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 2:15 am
The men challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeal that evidence obtained in United States detention camps could be used in proceedings against them. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 11:25 pm
United States, and McCulloch v. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am
In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27138/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I; and Connors, cited above, §§ 83 and 92) 68. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 6:57 pm
” United States v. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 3:35 am
Of course, this may not be that issue and the Supreme Court may just follow Lord Bingham in Kay v Lambeth. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 5:28 pm
City of Chicago a narrow 5-4 plurality held that the “Second Amendment right recognized in Heller” is incorporated to the States as applied to United States citizens. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 4:15 am
In Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 3:24 am
’ This interpretation was in turn rejected by the European Court of Human Rights in Gillan and Quinton v. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 2:11 am
Reynolds and Jameel – the existing law Before examining the proposals in Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill it is perhaps worth summarising shortly the existing state of the Reynolds common law defence. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 2:00 am
The legal test of bias is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased (Lawal v Northern Spirit [14], R v Abdroikov, 14-17 Bingham). [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 1:10 am
It noted that the problem of deciding the Court’s temporal jurisdiction had been considered with varying results in previous cases, notably Blecic v Croatia (2006) 43 E.H.R.R. 48, Moldovan v Romania (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 16, Balasoiu v Romania (App. no. 37424/97), 2 September 2003, and Kholodova v Russia (App. no. 30651/05), 14 September 2006. [read post]
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]
2 Jul 2010, 4:21 pm
This is a great day for civil liberties in the United States! [read post]
13 May 2010, 3:26 am
The intent and purpose of the 1999 Order was set out effectively in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another, Ex Parte Spath Holme Limited which was referred to in the instant case. [read post]
13 May 2010, 3:26 am
The intent and purpose of the 1999 Order was set out effectively in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another, Ex Parte Spath Holme Limited which was referred to in the instant case. [read post]
