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
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.
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 ...
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]
General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd v State of Libya [2021] UKSC 22: 25 June 2021 State Immunity Act 1978: Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23: 25 June 2021 Highways Act 1980: Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories Ltd [2021] UKSC 24: 2 July 2021 Causing loss by unlawful means
The Secretary of State had not appointed a day, and in 1993 said they would not. A compensation scheme had been running since 1964 under the Crown's prerogative power, but instead of moving to a statutory scheme, the Secretary of State said that a new non-statutory tariff scheme would be introduced with compensation fixed according to tariffs ...
Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy got to offer the first opinion on the 116-year rivalry Wednesday. On Thursday, it was OU coach Brent Venables' turn. Venables is no stranger to the in-state rivalry.
These are matters of political and administrative judgment, which the law leaves to those who are answerable to Parliament. They are not questions for a court of law. It is enough to justify the Secretary of State’s choice in this case that discrimination on the basis of residence and settlement are not “manifestly without foundation”.