This case concerned inaccurate evidence about the findings of a medical examination given to the CICB by a policewoman. The medical examination was to determine whether A had suffered the injuries that she claimed as a result of rape. The policewoman's testimony was that the examination suggested that A's claims were probably false, whereas the report of the examination, which was not seen by the Board, was in fact consistent with the injuries that A claimed to have suffered. Although the House of Lords recognised that a mistake of fact could form the basis for a judicial review claim, they in fact decided the case on the alternative basis of a breach of the rules of natural justice (see Chapter 16), so the comments made were obiter only.
Answer
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330
Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
This case concerned inaccurate evidence about the findings of a medical examination given to the CICB by a policewoman. The medical examination was to determine whether A had suffered the injuries that she claimed as a result of rape. The policewoman's testimony was that the examination suggested that A's claims were probably false, whereas the report of the examination, which was not seen by the Board, was in fact consistent with the injuries that A claimed to have suffered. Although the House of Lords recognised that a mistake of fact could form the basis for a judicial review claim, they in fact decided the case on the alternative basis of a breach of the rules of natural justice (see Chapter 16), so the comments made were obiter only.
Answer
?
Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
This case concerned inaccurate evidence about the findings of a medical examination given to the CICB by a policewoman. The medical examination was to determine whether A had suffered the injuries that she claimed as a result of rape. The policewoman's testimony was that the examination suggested that A's claims were probably false, whereas the report of the examination, which was not seen by the Board, was in fact consistent with the injuries that A claimed to have suffered. Although the House of Lords recognised that a mistake of fact could form the basis for a judicial review claim, they in fact decided the case on the alternative basis of a breach of the rules of natural justice (see Chapter 16), so the comments made were obiter only.
Answer
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it in R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), ex parte A [1999] 2 AC 330 four of the law lords accepted (obiter) that a mistake of fact could found a ground for review. This case concerned inaccurate evidence about the findings of a medical examination giv
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.