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
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Stow [2005] All ER (D) 132 (May), the Courts-Martial Appeal Court stated that a prosecutor had the ability to influence and even mislead a court. Therefore, his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority [...].
Answer
did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1)

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Stow [2005] All ER (D) 132 (May), the Courts-Martial Appeal Court stated that a prosecutor had the ability to influence and even mislead a court. Therefore, his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority [...].
Answer
?

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Stow [2005] All ER (D) 132 (May), the Courts-Martial Appeal Court stated that a prosecutor had the ability to influence and even mislead a court. Therefore, his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority [...].
Answer
did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1)
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority <span>did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1).<span><body><html>

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.