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
#constitution #law #public
Question
R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) [2002] 1 AC 45, a case concerning the admissibility of evidence in a rape trial, the law lords arguably seemed prepared to [...] through use of the very strong interpretive power given to them by the HRA 1998, s 3(1). Lord Steyn, giving the main judgment, stated:

'After all it is realistic to proceed on the basis that the legislature would not if alerted to the problem have wished to deny the right to an accused to put forward a full and complete defence … It is therefore possible under section 3 to read section 41 … as subject to the implied provision that evidence or questioning which is required to ensure a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention should not be treated as inadmissible.'

Answer
transform the meaning of the relevant legislation

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) [2002] 1 AC 45, a case concerning the admissibility of evidence in a rape trial, the law lords arguably seemed prepared to [...] through use of the very strong interpretive power given to them by the HRA 1998, s 3(1). Lord Steyn, giving the main judgment, stated:

'After all it is realistic to proceed on the basis that the legislature would not if alerted to the problem have wished to deny the right to an accused to put forward a full and complete defence … It is therefore possible under section 3 to read section 41 … as subject to the implied provision that evidence or questioning which is required to ensure a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention should not be treated as inadmissible.'

Answer
?

Tags
#constitution #law #public
Question
R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) [2002] 1 AC 45, a case concerning the admissibility of evidence in a rape trial, the law lords arguably seemed prepared to [...] through use of the very strong interpretive power given to them by the HRA 1998, s 3(1). Lord Steyn, giving the main judgment, stated:

'After all it is realistic to proceed on the basis that the legislature would not if alerted to the problem have wished to deny the right to an accused to put forward a full and complete defence … It is therefore possible under section 3 to read section 41 … as subject to the implied provision that evidence or questioning which is required to ensure a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention should not be treated as inadmissible.'

Answer
transform the meaning of the relevant legislation
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) [2002] 1 AC 45, a case concerning the admissibility of evidence in a rape trial, the law lords arguably seemed prepared to transform the meaning of the relevant legislation through use of the very strong interpretive power given to them by the HRA 1998, s 3(1). Lord Steyn, giving the main judgment, stated: 'After all it is realistic to proceed

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.