Search for: "Simms v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 90
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2010, 4:00 am by Rosalind English
The appellant derived this  “necessary implication”  test from the context of human rights or the principle of legality referred to in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 and R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] UKHL 21, [2003] 1 AC 563, where the question was whether section 20 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 overrode legal professional privilege, a common… [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 4:56 pm by INFORRM
After all, as he House of Lords observed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, freedom of expression is a right without “an effective rule of law is not possible”. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm by Matthew Flinn
After all, as he House of Lords observed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, freedom of expression is a right without “an effective rule of law is not possible”. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 11:44 am by Jack McNeill, Associate Library Director
Application of the remedial purpose canon to CERCLA successor liability issues after United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 10:04 pm by Rosalind English
Ultimately, as Lord Hoffmann states in R-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115, 131, Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights (provided it squarely confronts what it is doing). [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 11:41 am
The new proposed jury instruction follows the recent New Mexico Supreme Court case of State v. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 9:00 pm
 Last June, the United States Supreme Court determined that blank">Crawford v. [read post]