Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Hotak v London Borough of Southwark is a 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is a landmark judgment concerning homelessness law and concerned the meaning of vulnerability under s.189(1)(c) of Part VII of the Housing Act. [ 1 ]
Case name Citation Date Legal subject Summary of decision R (Haralambous) v Crown Court at St Albans [2018] UKSC 1 24 January Constitutional law, Search and seizure: Closed material procedures could be used in a judicial review of a Crown Court decision and there was no minimum core of material that the government was required to disclose to the other party where such procedures were used.
Case opinions: opinions: A very brief summary of the major findings or holdings in the case. Many case reports will have headnotes or summaries of the holdings that can be modified and entered into this field. String: optional: Judge(s) judge judges Membership: Judge(s) sitting on the case, in order of precedence. Wikilink names where articles ...
See R v Mills (disambiguation) for other cases by same name. R v Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court upheld the newly enacted rape shield law when challenged as a violation to section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
When considering necessity in R v Cole (1994) Crim. LR 582 Simon Brown LJ. held that the peril relied on to support the plea of necessity lacked imminence and the degree of directness and immediacy required of the link between the suggested peril and the offence charged. This defendant robbed two building societies in order to repay debts.
The London Borough of Southwark (/ ˈ s ʌ ð ə k / ⓘ SUDH-ərk) [2] [3] in South London forms part of Inner London and is connected by bridges across the River Thames to the City of London and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. It was created in 1965 when three smaller council areas were amalgamated under the London Government Act 1963.
In Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark [9] Lord Hope, writing for the majority, comments on the Practice Statement's applicability to the new court: 25. The Supreme Court has not thought it necessary to re-issue the Practice Statement as a fresh statement of practice in the Court’s own name.