Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Morgan [1975] UKHL 3 was a decision of the House of Lords which decided that an honest belief by a man that a woman with whom he was engaged with sexual intercourse was consenting was a defence to rape, irrespective of whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.On introducing the Bill's second reading in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said, "The aim of this Bill is to protect the victims of harassment.
Caribbean governments have been coming under increased pressure from their electorates [58] to devise ways to override previous rulings by the JCPC such as Pratt v A-G (Jamaica, 1993), [59] R v Hughes (Saint Lucia, 2002), Fox v R (Saint Kitts and Nevis, 2002), Reyes v R (2002, Belize), Boyce v R (Barbados, 2004), and Matthew v S (Trinidad and ...
The next few appointees were unimportant and uncontroversial, until Sir Charles Willie Matthews QC, a man Rozenberg describes as "the first real DPP". The Prosecution of Offences Act 1908 repealed the section of the 1884 Act that unified the DPP and Treasury Solicitor, giving Matthews an office of his own on his appointment in the same year. [7]
Pratt v A-G for Jamaica is a 1993 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case in which it was held that it was unconstitutional in Jamaica to execute a prisoner who had been on death row for 14 years.
Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11; [2012] 13 ILRM 153; [2012] 2 IR 266 [1] is an Irish Supreme Court case which considered whether section 29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 was unconstitutional.
Pratt’s statement appeared in Sunday Paper, which is run by his mother-in-law Maria Shriver who called it “a really good op-ed”. However, many disagree, mainly due to the fact this election ...
PM v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] IESC 22; [2006] 2 ILRM 361; [2006] 3 IR 172 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the decision of the lower court that PM (the respondent in the Supreme Court appeal) had satisfied the balancing test applicable in cases of delay in prosecution. [1]