Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson [1997] UKHL 25 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the exercise of independent judgement in judicial review. Facts
On 12 February 1993 in Merseyside, England, two 10-year-old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, abducted, tortured, and murdered a two-year-old boy, James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990 [2] – 12 February 1993). [3] [4] Thompson and Venables led Bulger away from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, where Bulger was visiting shops with ...
EU Law, UK Tax Law, The application of a deemed withholding tax on manufactured overseas dividends [c] on stock lending arrangements was not contrary to Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As the counterparty borrowers to stock lending arrangements typically had sufficient withholding tax credits to fully offset ...
Thompson and Venables were jailed for life but released on licence with new identities in 2001. Venables, now 40, was sent back to prison in 2010 and 2017 for possessing indecent images of children.
Constitutional law, Devolution in the UK: R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice and R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2: 30 January Criminal law: Applicants were not entitled to compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for criminal convictions which were subsequently quashed for being unsafe. [1]
The case, R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, went to the Divisional Court, where it was heard by judges Richard Gibbs and John Laws. [13] Bancoult's argument was made on several grounds: firstly, that the Crown could not exclude a British citizen from British territory, except in times of war, without a ...
Israel has approved the largest seizure of land in the occupied West Bank in over three decades, a settlement tracking group said Wednesday, a move that could further worsen already soaring ...
The Supreme Court held that the UK has constitutional instruments that the courts would not interpret to be abrogated without close scrutiny. [2] Lord Reed observed that the scrutiny of the legislative process required by the EU directive may amount to an impingement "upon long-established constitutional principles governing the relationship between Parliament and the courts" [3] including the