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
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because [...]. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8.
Answer
the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because [...]. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8.
Answer
?

Tags
#illegality #judicial-review #public
Question
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because [...]. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8.
Answer
the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the Home Department, ex parte P and ex parte Q, [2002] 1 WLR (CA) it was held that a policy of requiring children living with female prisoners to be taken into care at the age of 18 months should not have been applied to Q. This was because <span>the child had formed a very strong bond with her mother and the need to prevent harm to the child was not outweighed by the need for prison discipline. The decision to remove the child into care was therefore disproportionate and interfered with her rights under the ECHR, art 8. <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.