Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [1] is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union ...
R v Miller (case citation: [1982] UKHL 6; [1983] 2 AC 161) is an English criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. Facts [ edit ]
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland ([2019] UKSC 41), also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
[2] [3] [4] He represented the UK Government in the R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union case in 2016, [5] and in the R (Miller) v The Prime Minister case in 2019. [6] Eadie was born in March 1962 in Kensington, London, England. [7] [8] He attended Radley College and Magdalene College, Cambridge.
United States v. Miller , 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
R v R [1991] UKHL 12 is a House of Lords judgement in which R was convicted of attempting to rape his wife but appealed his conviction on the grounds of a marital rape exemption whereby R claimed a husband cannot be convicted of raping his wife as his wife had given consent to sexual intercourse through the contract of marriage which she could not withdraw.
A modern recognition by the House of Lords that a failure to act can result in criminal liability can be found in R v Miller. [11] In this case a squatter occupying a house fell asleep whilst smoking a cigarette, resulting in a small fire starting on his mattress. Rather than putting out the fire, he removed into an adjacent room, and fell ...
Miller v R [1977] 2 SCR 680 is a Canadian Bill of Rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where the Criminal Code provisions relating to the death penalty were challenged as a violation of the right against "cruel and unusual" punishment under section 2(b) of the Bill of Rights. Justice Laskin, for the majority, upheld the laws.