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, 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, after his mother had taken her eyes off him ...
The case was first heard by a Divisional Court, composed of Watkins LJ and Mann J. Mann, with Watkins concurring, rejected the Northumbria Police Authority's argument, saying that under the Royal Prerogative HM Government retained the right to do whatever "was necessary to meet either an actual or an apprehended threat to the peace", something that had not previously been recognised as a ...
Venables is now to face his second parole hearing – a case set for two days, starting on Tuesday. Jon Venables, 10 years of age, poses for a mugshot for British authorities February 20, 1993 ...
He was once again freed in August 2013 and then called back in November 2017 for the same offence, with parole judges last considering his case in September 2020.
Venables, now 40, was sent back to prison in 2010 and 2017 for possessing indecent images of children. ... But now the child killer has been informed that his case will be heard on Tuesday 14 and ...
On sentencing, the act formally removes the role of the Home Secretary in sentencing of young people for grave crimes (such as murder) following the decisions by the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept ex parte Venables and Thompson (1997) [5] and the subsequent case at the European Court of Human Rights, T. v United Kingdom.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] UKHL 3 is a House of Lords case concerning the awarding of compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The case is considered significant in constitutional terms for its ruling on the extent of ministerial prerogative powers.