in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a [...]and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.
Answer
16-hour curfew
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a [...]and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a [...]and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.
Answer
16-hour curfew
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a 16-hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to
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.