Search for: "Gillan v. Gillan"
Results 1 - 20
of 36
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2011, 3:12 am
State Insurance Fund penalized for unilaterally discontinuing claimants workers’ compensation benefits Matter of Gillan v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 2011 NY Slip Op 06959, Appellate Division, Third Department Dennis Gillan, correction officer employed by the New York State Department of Corrections suffered a work-related injury and was receiving workers’ compensation benefits from the State Insurance Fund [SIF], the Department’s workers'… [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 1:06 am
Anthony Cullen & Steven Wheatley, The Human Rights of Individuals in De Facto Regimes under the European Convention on Human Rights John Ip, The Reform of Counterterrorism Stop and Search after Gillan v United KingdomShorter Articles and Recent DevelopmentsDominic McGoldrick, Developments in the Right to be ForgottenMartin Kuijer, The Right to a Fair Trial and the Council of Europe’s Efforts to Ensure Effective Remedies on a Domestic Level for Excessively Lengthy… [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 7:30 am
The Justices considered two previous judgments in which it/the House of Lords has held suspicionless stop and search powers to comply with article 8 (R (Gillan) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12; Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] UKSC 49) and the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision in Gillan v UK (2010) application no. 4158/05, in which it held that the suspicionless search power under section 44… [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 12:30 am
Section 44 was abandoned in July of this year after the European Court of Human Rights refused an appeal its decision in Gillan & Quinton v. [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 6:42 am
Moran v. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 5:22 am
The Divisional Court (Gross LJ, Swift and Foskett JJ) began by considering the relevance of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Gillan v UK 50 EHRR 1105. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:05 am
Read more: Home Secretary on offensive as police admit anti-terror mistakes Gillan and Quinton v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 7:34 am
The difference between the Dutch case and Gillan and Quinton v UK was that the British legal framework did not comply with these requirements while the Dutch law did. [read post]
30 Aug 2013, 9:55 am
The High Court distinguished Gillan v UK and found that the powers in Sch 7 were a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 1:32 am
Lord Wilson held that the regime for the issue of CRCs and ECRCs was sufficiently foreseeable and accessible for it to be in accordance with the law as interpreted in Gillan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12, [2006] 2 AC 307, and Gillan v UK (App No 4158/05), (2010) 50 EHRR 1105 at [31]. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 1:15 am
In summary Mrs Beghal’s argument was that: Article 8 had been breached because the powers created by Schedule 7 did not depend on any objectively justifiable grounds of suspicion so they failed the test of legality (Gillan v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 45). [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 5:00 am
In Gelboim v. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
The European Court of Human Rights recently held that the powers violate the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights (Gillan and Quinton v. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 5:25 pm
Lord Wilson held that the regime for the issue of CRCs and ECRCs was sufficiently foreseeable and accessible for it to be in accordance with the law as interpreted in Gillan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2006] UKHL 12 [2006] 2 AC 307, and Gillan v United Kingdom (2010) 50 EHRR 1105 at [31]. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 6:37 am
(Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom (2009) The search powers of security personnel at airports were qualitatively different, said the Court. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 2:50 am
Moreover, in Gillan the court “considered the breadth of the discretion conferred on individual officers under section 44 to be too great“. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 3:57 am
In T-Mobile South v. [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 7:58 pm
On January 12th 2010, the ECHR ruled in judgment Gillan and Quiton v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 6:13 am
The Court noted that the powers were not “sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse” (Gillan & Quinton v UK Judgment 12 January 2010 – for previous discussion by Vicky see here). [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 8:31 am
In Gillan and Quinton v UK, sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act (which set out a power to stop and search exercisable in relation to any person anywhere in the street), had already been held not to be in accordance with the law despite having a narrower purpose and scope of application, and despite not allowing as intrusive a search as the one permitted under Schedule 7. [read post]
