Conversely, in Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 241, the applicants were brought before a magistrates' court, where they were bound over to keep the peace following their disruption of a fox hunt. Here, the binding over orders were not imposed as a sanction for past unlawful conduct, and it could not therefore be said that what the applicants were being bound over not to do would have been apparent to them. The Strasbourg court therefore held that there had been a breach of the ECHR, art 10, on the basis that [...].
Answer
the interference had not been prescribed by law
Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
Conversely, in Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 241, the applicants were brought before a magistrates' court, where they were bound over to keep the peace following their disruption of a fox hunt. Here, the binding over orders were not imposed as a sanction for past unlawful conduct, and it could not therefore be said that what the applicants were being bound over not to do would have been apparent to them. The Strasbourg court therefore held that there had been a breach of the ECHR, art 10, on the basis that [...].
Answer
?
Tags
#human-rights #public
Question
Conversely, in Hashman and Harrup v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 241, the applicants were brought before a magistrates' court, where they were bound over to keep the peace following their disruption of a fox hunt. Here, the binding over orders were not imposed as a sanction for past unlawful conduct, and it could not therefore be said that what the applicants were being bound over not to do would have been apparent to them. The Strasbourg court therefore held that there had been a breach of the ECHR, art 10, on the basis that [...].
Answer
the interference had not been prescribed by law
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it ful conduct, and it could not therefore be said that what the applicants were being bound over not to do would have been apparent to them. The Strasbourg court therefore held that there had been a breach of the ECHR, art 10, on the basis that <span>the interference had not been prescribed by law.<span><body><html>
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.