Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
A and Others v [...] [2004] UKHL 56 (also known as the ‘Belmarsh case’). This case concerned the detention of a number of suspected terrorists held in Belmarsh Prison under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001permitted detention of suspected international terrorists without charge or trial. Such detention was presumed incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and so the UK initially lodged a derogation from this Article (through the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001) in order to allow it to pass the above measure in the first place. However, the House of Lords ruled that the derogation did not satisfy the criteria required: as a result, they quashed the derogation order which then allowed them to issue a declaration of incompatibility in respect of section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Answer
Secretary of State for the Home Department

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
A and Others v [...] [2004] UKHL 56 (also known as the ‘Belmarsh case’). This case concerned the detention of a number of suspected terrorists held in Belmarsh Prison under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001permitted detention of suspected international terrorists without charge or trial. Such detention was presumed incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and so the UK initially lodged a derogation from this Article (through the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001) in order to allow it to pass the above measure in the first place. However, the House of Lords ruled that the derogation did not satisfy the criteria required: as a result, they quashed the derogation order which then allowed them to issue a declaration of incompatibility in respect of section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Answer
?

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
A and Others v [...] [2004] UKHL 56 (also known as the ‘Belmarsh case’). This case concerned the detention of a number of suspected terrorists held in Belmarsh Prison under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001permitted detention of suspected international terrorists without charge or trial. Such detention was presumed incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and so the UK initially lodged a derogation from this Article (through the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001) in order to allow it to pass the above measure in the first place. However, the House of Lords ruled that the derogation did not satisfy the criteria required: as a result, they quashed the derogation order which then allowed them to issue a declaration of incompatibility in respect of section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Answer
Secretary of State for the Home Department
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56 (also known as the ‘Belmarsh case’). This case concerned the detention of a number of suspected terrorists held in Belmarsh Prison under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.