In [case]the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months. The Privy Council stated that the protection afforded by the ECHR, art 6(1) may be regarded as demanding a standard of performance by the prosecutor which is more exacting than that set by common law, as it does not require the person charged to demonstrate prejudice.
Answer
HM Advocate v JK [2002]
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case]the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months. The Privy Council stated that the protection afforded by the ECHR, art 6(1) may be regarded as demanding a standard of performance by the prosecutor which is more exacting than that set by common law, as it does not require the person charged to demonstrate prejudice.
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case]the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months. The Privy Council stated that the protection afforded by the ECHR, art 6(1) may be regarded as demanding a standard of performance by the prosecutor which is more exacting than that set by common law, as it does not require the person charged to demonstrate prejudice.
Answer
HM Advocate v JK [2002]
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29, the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months. The Privy Council stated that the protection afforded by the ECHR, art 6(1) may be regar
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.