Search for: "State v. R. Hope"
Results 1 - 20
of 5,393
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2008, 8:41 am
R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (3) [2008] EWHC 2519 (Admin); [2008] WLR (D) 323 “In the light of the stance taken by the US government that it would reconsider the intelligence relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom if the court were to make the order sought by the claimant, the appropriate course was to stay proceedings until after the outcome of the forthcoming hearing in the US… [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 8:21 am
On 10 February, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal in R (A) v SSHD. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am
This was the riddle that recently occupied a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:26 am
At first glance the question facing the Supreme Court in R v Gnango, heard on the 11th and 12th July, reads like a particularly complex examination problem. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 4:10 am
They argued that this was the necessary implication of the finding of the Supreme Court in the case of Munir v Secretary of State [2012] 1 WLR 2192 and Alvi (which were heard together) that the power of the Secretary of State to make or vary the Immigration Rules was wholly statutory and not an exercise of prerogative power: [27]. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 2:33 am
On 18 February 2016, the Supreme Court handed down its much awaited judgment in the appeal of R v Jogee [2013] EWCA Crim 1433, which was consolidated with the Privy Council appeal of Ruddock v The Queen JCPC 2015/0020. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 10:48 am
United States by Hope Lewis, professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 1:30 pm
In June of this year, The Federal Supreme Court held that the United States Constitution requires states to recognize same sex marriages when it decided Obergefell v. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 5:30 am
The case of R. v. [read post]
29 Jul 2016, 2:21 am
Judgment has now been handed down in R (Public Law Project) v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39, in which Regulations made under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) were challenged. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 1:00 am
In the case preview for R v Gnango , it was suggested that the question facing the Supreme Court read like a particularly complex examination problem. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 4:47 pm
In the case of R (P, G and W) and Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Anor [2019] UKSC 3 the Supreme Court upheld challenges to the legal regimes for disclosing criminal records in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, finding them to be incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 4:56 pm
State v. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 10:00 am
United States and McDonnell v. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 3:20 pm
Blawgletter doesn't often visit the realm of criminal jurisprudence, but we couldn't help but notice yesterday's ruling in United States v. [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 12:22 pm
In State v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:06 am
Perhaps in fear of the Supreme Court having a reduced role in criminal jurisprudence, the Court of Appeal’s refusal to certify a point was recently challenged in the case of R v James Lee Dunn. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 2:19 pm
What amounts to “positive action” will no doubt depend upon the circumstances of a particular case and, in some circumstances, the state may be required to take positive steps to prevent ill-treatment at the hands of others (see, e.g., R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38 at [24] per Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2008] UKHL 66 at [44] per Lord… [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 1:12 pm
Scott Brown (R-MA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Al Franken (D-MN), and Johnny Isakson (R-GA), formally introduced S. 606, the Creating Hope Act of 2011. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
Firstly, the authorities are unclear on what percentage of the population has to be at risk before a country is removed from the white list (in R (Husan) v SSHD [2005] EWHC 189 Admin 1% of the population was considered ‘significant’, yet in Singh v SSHD & Anor [2001] EWHC 925 (Admin), 0.76% of the population was not). [read post]
