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 [...]under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.
Answer
did amount to a violation of his right to liberty
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 16-hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family [...]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 16-hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family [...]under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.
Answer
did amount to a violation of his right to liberty
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it /head>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 a control order since 2008.<html>
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.