In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the [statute]contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the [statute]contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the [statute]contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
Criminal Justice Act 2003
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR,
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.