[case], the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art 5(4) had been violated because there had been no judicial control of the applicants' detention. The Home Secretary, rather than a court, had decided on the length of the tariff to be served and there had been no form of review.
Answer
T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[case], the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art 5(4) had been violated because there had been no judicial control of the applicants' detention. The Home Secretary, rather than a court, had decided on the length of the tariff to be served and there had been no form of review.
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[case], the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art 5(4) had been violated because there had been no judicial control of the applicants' detention. The Home Secretary, rather than a court, had decided on the length of the tariff to be served and there had been no form of review.
Answer
T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121, the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art 5(4) had been violated because there had been no judicial control of the applicants' detention. The Home Secretary, rather than a court, had decide
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.