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 (on the application of Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] EWCA Civ 275, the appellant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner who had been convicted of murder. He was diagnosed with cancer of the colon and was receiving medication from the healthcare centre at the prison. He alleged that the Secretary of State's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3. The Court of Appeal stated that, [...]. The threshold had not been reached in the instant case.
Answer
to show a breach of the ECHR, art 3, the conduct on the part of the state must be of a serious and wholly unacceptable kind

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R (on the application of Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] EWCA Civ 275, the appellant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner who had been convicted of murder. He was diagnosed with cancer of the colon and was receiving medication from the healthcare centre at the prison. He alleged that the Secretary of State's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3. The Court of Appeal stated that, [...]. The threshold had not been reached in the instant case.
Answer
?

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R (on the application of Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] EWCA Civ 275, the appellant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner who had been convicted of murder. He was diagnosed with cancer of the colon and was receiving medication from the healthcare centre at the prison. He alleged that the Secretary of State's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3. The Court of Appeal stated that, [...]. The threshold had not been reached in the instant case.
Answer
to show a breach of the ECHR, art 3, the conduct on the part of the state must be of a serious and wholly unacceptable kind
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3. The Court of Appeal stated that, <span>to show a breach of the ECHR, art 3, the conduct on the part of the state must be of a serious and wholly unacceptable kind. The threshold had not been reached in the instant case.<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.