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
#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

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

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.