enow.com Web Search

Search results

1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network

2. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Secretary_of_State_for...

   The House of Lords allowed the appeal. Lord Steyn gave the leading judgment. Lord Hoffmann agreed with Lord Steyn and said the following. [note 1]Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights.

3. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_v_Secretary_of_State_for...

   A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 (also known as the Belmarsh 9 case) is a UK human rights case heard before the House of Lords.It held that the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners in Belmarsh without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

4. R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Daly)_v_Secretary_of...

   R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26 is a UK constitutional law case of the House of Lords case on the rights of a prisoner when his cell is searched by prison officers.

5. R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of ...

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(on_the_application_of...

   R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKSC 35 [1] was a 2016 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom that affirmed the decision of the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) despite new evidence subsequently coming to light. [2]

6. Sofía Vergara Just Convinced Me These Leather Pants Are a ...

   www.aol.com/sof-vergara-just-convinced-leather...

   Vergara contrasted the figure-hugging fit of her top with a pair of slouchy leather pants that immediately soared to the top of our shopping wishlist.

7. R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour-Smith

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Secretary_of_State_for...

   Ms Nicole Seymour-Smith and Ms Perez had made a claim against the Secretary of State for Employment that the United Kingdom's qualifying period of two years for unfair dismissal constituted indirect discrimination against women under the Treaty of the European Union, article 119 (now TFEU art 157) and the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC.