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 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.
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 ...
The recent settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the state of North Carolina enables thousands of its low-income drivers to The post Settlement approved for low-income NC drivers 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 ...
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]
In April, a jury in Catawba County awarded this seven-figure judgment to a plaintiff whose spouse had formed a long-distance relationship outside their 19-year marriage, according to NC Lawyers ...
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 ...