Search for: "People v. Hirst"
Results 21 - 40
of 56
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2010, 9:44 pm
We posted recently on the continuing refusal of the UK Government to comply with the 2005 judgment of Hirst v UK, where the European Court held that the ban on prisoners voting in the UK was a breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 8:55 am
He asked the administrative court initially, following Hirst No. 2 and the more recent case of Frodl v Austria (see our post), if there was anything else it could do to implement the principles made very clear in those judgments. [read post]
23 Nov 2012, 5:17 am
He thought he ate a fishball,but it was by Damien Hirst --and the formaldehydetasted dreadful ...This week's big event in the IPKat's diary was the IP Publishers and Editors lunch, at which a record crowd was treated to the pleasures of a delightful lunch, a view of Simmons & Simmons' art collection (think Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin) and themed display on social exclusion. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 7:57 am
In the 2005 decision of Hirst No 2, the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
9 May 2010, 3:06 am
Ironically, Mr Hirst is still waiting for that just satisfaction as the UK have continued to bar prisoners from voting. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 8:26 am
Given that Membership of the EU is dependent upon Member States adhering to the Convention, does the UK intend to pull out of Europe or alternatively implement the ECtHR decision in Hirst v UK(No2)? [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 10:00 pm
Very briefly, in 2005 the Strasbourg Court ruled, in the case of Hirst v UK (2006) 42 EHRR 41, that this blanket ban violated the right to vote under Article 3 Protocol 1. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 1:27 am
The very basic background to this issue is that in the 2005 decision of Hirst (No. 2), the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:05 pm
The Explanatory Notes refer to Thornton (cited above) and Jameel v The Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2003] EWCA Civ 1694. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 6:19 am
The background to this issue is that in the 2005 decision of Hirst (No. 2),the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 4:43 pm
In the 2005 decision of Hirst, the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 8:47 am
The Strasbourg authorities including Dickson v United Kingdom [2008] 1 F.L.R. 1315 and Hirst v United Kingdom (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 41 indicated that Article 8 was engaged whenever a public authority applied a policy which restricted benefits to a particular class of people such as prisoners, and it was important to remember this principle, set out in Hirst and cited in Dickson: Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and… [read post]
30 May 2010, 2:32 am
On the face of it, it seems that government may finally act on this issue, five years after the European Court of Human Rights criticism of its ban in the case of Hirst v UK. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 5:50 am
Thank you to John Hirst for the tip-off. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 5:57 am
Ireland avoided such cases by allowing prisoners the vote in the wake of Hirst. [read post]
22 Feb 2009, 10:43 am
To deny them this right would mean that they are being victimised, and would lead to claims for compensation costing the government many millions of pounds at a time when there is an economic downturn.Following the landmark judgment in Hirst v UK(No2), Cyprus, Iraq, and the Republic of Ireland, have granted prisoners the vote, and now Hong Kong is to follow suit.The petition has been filed with the Committee on Petitions, the specific point raised about the EU parliamentary… [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 1:08 pm
It does not, in our view, affect the substance of Article 25, which is concerned with universal franchise and the free expression of the people in the choice of legislature. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 10:39 pm
In this case, it was Hirst v UK (No2). [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 2:05 pm
Steiner v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 2:23 am
The UK had attempted to appeal the recent decision in Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom. [read post]
