Edited, memorised or added to reading list

on 16-Jul-2016 (Sat)

Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Click here to log in or create user.

Article 1348967992588

Jo Murkens: Brexit: The Devolution Dimension
#constitution #law

The results of the third nation-wide referendum in the United Kingdom are still sinking in at home and around the world. Just below 52% voted to leave the European Union, just over 48% voted to remain. The widespread conclusion is that the UK must leave the EU. But there is another way of reading the result. The United Kingdom is not a centralised state. It is a ‘family of nations’. There is a strong case for arguing that the referendum carries only if a majority of voters in all four nations respectively give their backing. England and Wales voted to leave, but Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Recognising that split is not a matter of shifting the goalposts after the fact. It is about respecting an established, indeed a compelling constitutional order. Before Westminster politicians think about the practicalities of withdrawing from the EU, they urgently need to address the constitutional consequences. What is the overriding objective? To give legal effect to the will of the UK electo



#crime #defences #law
R v Pordage [1975] Crim LR 575 (CA), confirmed that the question at issue is not whether the defendant was incapable of forming the mens rea, but whether, even if still capable, he did form it.
statusnot read reprioritisations
last reprioritisation on reading queue position [%]
started reading on finished reading on

pdf

cannot see any pdfs




Article 1365809171724

Robert Brett Taylor: Constitutional Conventions, Article 50 and Brexit
#constitution #public

Following the result of the referendum on British membership of the European Union, constitutional commentators have been embroiled in a discussion over the legal basis on which withdrawal from the EU can take place, in particular whether parliamentary approval is legally required before Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union can be triggered. The purpose of this post is not to explore these arguments in great detail, however, but to comment upon a point raised principally by Alison Young, but also in passing by Mark Elliott, regarding the possibility of a constitutional convention – a politically-binding rule – regulating the use of Article 50. In my view, it seems likely that the power to trigger Article 50 and withdraw from the EU remains legally with the Government under the royal prerogative, and not with Parliament. Although it is conceded that an Act of Parliament amending or repealing the European Communities Act 1972 would eventually be needed in order to give domestic effect to EU withdra



Article 1365810482444

Alex Green: Why the EU Referendum Might Be Morally Binding

In an erudite and sophisticated post on this blog, Dr Yossi Nehushtan argues that the United Kingdom’s recent referendum on membership in the European Union is not morally binding on the British government. Whilst there is plenty there that I agree with, in a number of ways I think his conclusion was too quick. In this brief reply, I provide what I take to be the strongest case for the pro tantomorally binding nature of the referendum. The Nature of the Debate On the 23 rd of June 2016, I voted to remain because I believed that leaving would likely spell economic and political trouble for the UK, if not outright disaster. Hopefully I will be proven wrong. Whatever the truth might be, it is important for us to separate: a) the question of whether the referendum is pro tanto morally binding; from b) the distinct problem of whether or not leaving the EU is all-things-considered advisable. Consider the moral nature of promising. All other things being equal, the fact that I promised is a good reas



Article 1365811793164

Yossi Nehushtan: Why Is It Illegal for the Prime Minister to Perceive the EU Referendum’s Result as Morally-Politically Authoritative?

In a previous post I argued that it is morally wrong to perceive the EU referendum’s result as morally and politically authoritative. My arguments were made in light of the fact that the referendum’s result is not legally binding. Here I wish to highlight a related yet neglected point and to argue that it is also illegal for the Prime Minister to perceive the EU referendum’s result as morally and politically authoritative. Why is it illegal for the Prime Minister to perceive the referendum’s result as morally-politically authoritative? On the legal front, the current debate focuses on the question of who has the legal authority to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin the Brexit process. Some argue (quite convincingly) that only Parliament has this authority (and see Barber, Hickman, and King’s post). Others argue that Government, and in fact the Prime Minister, acting under the Royal Prerogative, can act without the approval of Parliament. The latter is, apparently, the view of Governme



Article 1365813103884

Robert Craig: Triggering Article 50 Does not Require Fresh Legislation

Introduction Considerable public interest has recently been focused on the ‘trigger’ mechanism for exit from the EU which is set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Expert opinion has divided between those who believe that the power to trigger Article 50 rests with the Executive using the legal authority of the royal prerogative from the Crown with no further parliamentary involvement necessary and those who argue that fresh legislation is required to confer statutory authorisation on the Executive to do something which could render nugatory rights under the European Communities Act 1972 (‘ECA’). An ingenious third way involving section 2(2) of the ECA has also been suggested. This note suggests that no fresh legislation is required and that the power to trigger Article 50 rests with the Executive but for very different reasons to those suggested by what might be termed the ‘prerogative’ camp. The live question is whether, if legislation were deemed necessary, a Parliament which is overwhelmingl



Article 1365814414604

Thomas Fairclough: Article 50 and the Royal Prerogative

Introduction This piece seeks to address only one question: does Parliament or the Government have the power to decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with Article 50 TEU and through the notifying of the European Council of such a decision trigger the two year time limited formal withdrawal negotiations? Nick Barber, Tom Hickman, and Jeff King have argued valiantly that it will be Parliament who has to “pull the Article 50 trigger”. This piece will analyse their arguments and suggest that, contrary to their conclusions, it is the Government, under the Royal Prerogative, that has legal authority to start the Article 50 process. The Article 50 Process This piece assumes that it will be Article 50 that is used to begin the exiting process (as argued for here). It will also assume that the exiting process will begin; whilst there have been some suggestions that the United Kingdom will not try to exit the European Union I argue that this is unlikely as a matter of political fact (w



Article 1365815725324

Colm O’Cinneide: Why Parliamentary Approval for the Triggering of Article 50 TEU Should Be Required as a Matter of Constitutional Principle

The argument that Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) cannot be lawfully triggered without the consent of Parliament has generated plenty of excited discussion over the last week, both in specialist legal circles and in the wider world. The announcement by Mishcon de Reya that that legal action was pending to ‘ensure the UK Government will not trigger the procedure for withdrawal from the EU without an Act of Parliament’ has brought this debate to boiling point. Some commentators have talked excitedly about a ‘legal dream team… launching a last gasp legal bid to preserve Britain’s European Union membership’. In response, there has been a visceral backlash in pro-Leave ranks against what they see as an attempt by conniving lawyers to thwart the will of the people. The front page of the Daily Express on 4 July 2016 led with the banner headline ’Top Lawyers in Threat to Referendum Vote & Democracy’, going on to warn about ‘outrage and rioting on the streets’. Similarly, Professor Frank Furedi commen



Article 1365817036044

Mike Gordon: Brexit: The Constitutional Necessity of an Early General Election

In the stunning aftermath of the Brexit referendum, intense debateamong constitutional lawyers has focused on Art 50 TEU, and the domestic legal (or constitutional) requirements for a decision to leave the EU. In this post, I want to step back from this debate – important though it has been, and continues to be – and reflect more directly on the normative underpinnings of these arguments. I want to suggest that when we bring some of these normative ideas to the surface, and consider them head on, a greater priority emerges than establishing (or perhaps manipulating) claims as to the legal authority for triggering the Art 50 withdrawal process. Instead, I will argue that our normative instincts are best channelled towards pressing the constitutional case for an early general election, which is necessary to determine the kind of exit from the EU we ultimately experience in the UK. Normative Instincts in the Art 50 Debate The most obvious normative urge underpinning the Art 50 debate to this point h



Article 1365818346764

Colin Harvey: Complex Constitutionalism in a Pluralist UK

Constitutional Pluralism If constitutional pluralism is taken seriously, then the voters of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland delivered a complicated message to the Westminster Parliament and Executive; hardly a surprise in a multi-national state. A complex message will no doubt also emerge from all the democratic institutions within the UK. There was a simple majority in the referendum for ‘leave’, of course. Concurrent consent was absent from Scotland and Northern Ireland (and, of course, Gibraltar). A close vote, such as this, was never going to terminate the constitutional conversation, and the decision on what to do now demands further democratic deliberation. People want to keep talking about the legal and political implications and requirements. If ‘leave’ had secured majorities everywhere the picture might be slightly different. They did not. Mutual Respect Northern Ireland is the region with perhaps most to lose (my colleague – Professor Christopher McCrudden – h



Article 1365819657484

Ewan Smith: What Would Happen if the Government Unlawfully Issued an Article 50 Notification without Parliamentary Approval?

In “Pulling the Article 50 ‘Trigger’: Parliament’s Indispensable Role” Nick Barber, Jeff King and Tom Hickman argued that it is Parliament, and not the government, who get to decide whether to trigger a notification under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union. I agree with them. Barber, King and Hickman base the argument on general grounds, drawing on the Case of Proclamations. However, it is important to consider the specialised rules that apply to the government’s power to conclude treaties. It is also important to think about the consequences of unconstitutional action, both as a matter of domestic and international law. It is not obvious that a British court could prevent the government from issuing a notification, nor is it obvious that an unconstitutional notification would be ineffective in international law. This post will explain these complications; then explain why an English court can issue a declaration to prevent the government from making a notification without Parliamentary appr



Article 1365820968204

Adam Tucker: Triggering Brexit: A Decision for the Government, but under Parliamentary Scrutiny

What more, if anything, is needed to translate the result of the referendum into actual exit from the European Union? This question, which hardly featured in public discussion before the poll, is now the subject of a fundamental public controversy. For the withdrawal process to begin, Article 50(1) of the Treaty of Lisbon requires a decision to leave the EU to have been made according to our own “constitutional requirements” (règles constitutionnelles in the less awkward French version of the text). So what counts as a decision to leave, and therefore as an event capable of triggering the withdrawal mechanisms in Article 50, is a question of domestic constitutional law. Three understandings of what would count as such a decision have attracted support in recent days. This post summarises those three positions before articulating and defending a fourth, hitherto neglected, possibility. I argue that the decision must be made under the statutory power created in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act



Flashcard 1365822541068

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In contrast, the claimants in [Case] did have an alternative mechanism available to them: The Council had offered to put their grievance before a statutory complaints panel but the claimants had still sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal observed that insufficient attention has been paid to the paramount importance of avoiding litigation wherever possible and emphasised that, unless there is good reason, the courts should not permit proceedings for judicial review to proceed if a significant part of the issues between the parties could be resolved outside the litigation process.
Answer
R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council (Practice Notice)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In contrast, the claimants in R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council (Practice Notice) [2002] 1 WLR 803 did have an alternative mechanism available to them. The Council had offered to put their grievance before a statutory complaints panel but the claimants had still sough

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365824900364

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The Council had offered to put their grievance before a statutory complaints panel but the claimants had still sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal observed that insufficient attention has been paid to the paramount importance of avoiding litigation wherever possible and emphasised that, unless there is good reason, the courts should not permit proceedings for judicial review to proceed if a significant part of the issues between the parties could be resolved outside the litigation process.
Answer
R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council (Practice Notice)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In contrast, the claimants in R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council (Practice Notice) [2002] 1 WLR 803 did have an alternative mechanism available to them. The Council had offered to put their grievance before a statutory complaints panel but the claimants had still sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal observed that insufficient attention has been paid to the paramount importance of avoiding litigation wherever possible and emphasised that, unless there is good reason, the courts should not permit proceedings for judicial review to proceed if a significant part of the issues between the parties could be resolved outside the litigation process.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365827259660

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council (Practice Notice)
Answer
The Council had offered to put their grievance before a statutory complaints panel but the claimants had still sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal observed that insufficient attention has been paid to the paramount importance of avoiding litigation wherever possible and emphasised that, unless there is good reason, the courts should not permit proceedings for judicial review to proceed if a significant part of the issues between the parties could be resolved outside the litigation process.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In contrast, the claimants in R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council (Practice Notice) [2002] 1 WLR 803 did have an alternative mechanism available to them. The Council had offered to put their grievance before a statutory complaints panel but the claimants had still sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal observed that insufficient attention has been paid to the paramount importance of avoiding litigation wherever possible and emphasised that, unless there is good reason, the courts should not permit proceedings for judicial review to proceed if a significant part of the issues between the parties could be resolved outside the litigation process.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365829094668

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In contrast, the claimants in R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council (Practice Notice) [2002] 1 WLR 803 did have an alternative mechanism available to them. The Council had offered to put their grievance before a statutory complaints panel but the claimants had still sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal observed that insufficient attention has been paid to the paramount importance of avoiding litigation wherever possible and emphasised that, unless there is good reason, [...]
Answer
the courts should not permit proceedings for judicial review to proceed if a significant part of the issues between the parties could be resolved outside the litigation process.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
but the claimants had still sought judicial review. The Court of Appeal observed that insufficient attention has been paid to the paramount importance of avoiding litigation wherever possible and emphasised that, unless there is good reason, <span>the courts should not permit proceedings for judicial review to proceed if a significant part of the issues between the parties could be resolved outside the litigation process.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365830929676

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
As the House of Lords observed in [Case], judicial review will not normally be granted where an alternative remedy is available. In most cases, the remedy of a taxpayer lies in the appeal procedures provided by the tax statutes. The taxpayer will be expected to use the appeal procedure rather than resort to judicial review.
Answer
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Preston

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
As the House of Lords observed in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Preston [1985] AC 835, judicial review will not normally be granted where an alternative remedy is available. In most cases, the remedy of a taxpayer lies in the appeal procedures provided by

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365834075404

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Judicial review will not normally be granted where an alternative remedy is available.
Answer
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Preston

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
As the House of Lords observed in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Preston [1985] AC 835, judicial review will not normally be granted where an alternative remedy is available. In most cases, the remedy of a taxpayer lies in the appeal procedures provided by the tax statutes. The taxpayer will be expected to use the appeal procedure rather than resort to judic

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365841415436

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In [Case], a six-week time limit on appeals against the decision of a planning inspector was held to satisfy the requirements under ECHR, art 6(1). It pursued the legitimate aim of certainty and finality and was not so short as to deprive appellants of a reasonable opportunity to challenge a decision.
Answer
Matthews v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Matthews v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 851, a six-week time limit on appeals against the decision of a planning inspector was held to satisfy these requirements. It pursued the legitimate aim of certainty an

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365843774732

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In Matthews v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 851, a [Duration?] time limit on appeals against the decision of a planning inspector was held to satisfy these requirements. It pursued the legitimate aim of certainty and finality and was not so short as to deprive appellants of a reasonable opportunity to challenge a decision.
Answer
six-week

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Matthews v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 851, a six-week time limit on appeals against the decision of a planning inspector was held to satisfy these requirements. It pursued the legitimate aim of certainty and finality and was not so short as

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365848755468

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in [Case?].
Answer
Smith v East Elloe RDC

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Envir

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365851114764

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in [Case?]. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in <span>R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365853474060

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule [Subsection?] which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.
Answer
54.5(3)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule <span>54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365855833356

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by [Statute?] which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.
Answer
Civil Procedure Rule 54.5(3)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
lthough there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by <span>Civil Procedure Rule 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365858192652

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The courts have responded to [partial exclusion provisions] by taking them at face value and they are therefore likely to strike out any action brought after the time limit has expired. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Smith v East Elloe RDC [1956] 1 All ER 855. Although there was some criticism of the East Elloe decision in Anisminic, the approach was reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when [...]'.
Answer
any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
eaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Ostler [1977] QB 122. It has more recently been reinforced by Civil Procedure Rule 54.5(3) which provides that the normal time limit does 'not apply when <span>any other enactment specifies a shorter time limit for making the claim for judicial review'.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365860027660

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A partial or time limit ouster clause is a legislative provision that, on the face of it, appears to [...].
Answer
exclude the jurisdiction of the court once a time limit has expired

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A partial or time limit ouster clause is a legislative provision that, on the face of it, appears to exclude the jurisdiction of the court once a time limit has expired.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365861600524

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A [...] is a legislative provision that, on the face of it, appears to exclude the jurisdiction of the court once a time limit has expired.
Answer
partial or time limit ouster clause

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A partial or time limit ouster clause is a legislative provision that, on the face of it, appears to exclude the jurisdiction of the court once a time limit has expired.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365863959820

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The leading case on Ouster Clauses is [Case?].
Answer
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The leading case on Ouster Clauses is Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 137. In this case, the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 provided that a determination made by the Foreign Compensation Commission (FCC) 'shall not be called into question in any

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365866319116

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission
Answer
In this case, the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 provided that a determination made by the Foreign Compensation Commission (FCC) 'shall not be called into question in any court of law'. Anisminic Ltd. wished to challenge a determination of the FCC on the grounds that it had misconstrued the legal effect of the statutory framework under which it operated, and had therefore reached an illegal decision. The House of Lords held that the ouster clause did not prevent Anisminic from challenging the decision of the FCC.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The leading case on Ouster Clauses is Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 137. In this case, the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 provided that a determination made by the Foreign Compensation Commission (FCC) 'shall not be called into question in any

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365868678412

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In this case, the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 provided that a determination made by the Foreign Compensation Commission (FCC) 'shall not be called into question in any court of law'. ["A"] Ltd. wished to challenge a determination of the FCC on the grounds that it had misconstrued the legal effect of the statutory framework under which it operated, and had therefore reached an illegal decision. The House of Lords held that the ouster clause did not prevent ["A"] from challenging the decision of the FCC.
Answer
Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The leading case on Ouster Clauses is Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 137. In this case, the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 provided that a determination made by the Foreign Compensation Commission (FCC) 'shall not be called into question in any

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365870513420

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The leading case on Ouster Clauses is Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 137. In this case, the Foreign Compensation Act 1950 provided that a determination made by the Foreign Compensation Commission (FCC) 'shall not be called into question in any court of law'. Anisminic Ltd. wished to challenge a determination of the FCC on the grounds that it had misconstrued the legal effect of the statutory framework under which it operated, and had therefore reached an illegal decision. The House of Lords held that the ouster clause [did / did not?] prevent Anisminic from challenging the decision of the FCC.
Answer
did not

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
to challenge a determination of the FCC on the grounds that it had misconstrued the legal effect of the statutory framework under which it operated, and had therefore reached an illegal decision. The House of Lords held that the ouster clause <span>did not prevent Anisminic from challenging the decision of the FCC.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365874183436

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A [...] is [a clause] that appears completely to exclude judicial review.
Answer
total ouster clause

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A total ouster clause is one that appears completely to exclude judicial review.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365876542732

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A total ouster clause is one that appears [...].
Answer
completely to exclude judicial review

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A total ouster clause is one that appears completely to exclude judicial review.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365878115596

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A total ouster clause is one that appears completely to exclude judicial review. The courts are generally hostile to total ouster clauses as they are seen, in constitutional terms,to represent a challenge to the rule of law. Judicial review is seen as a basic right of all citizens. The modern judiciary has responded by developing [what?]. Almost invariably, therefore, the courts will hold that judicial review was not intended to be excluded.
Answer
an extremely strong presumption of statutory interpretation that Parliament does not intend to exclude judicial review

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
are generally hostile to total ouster clauses as they are seen, in constitutional terms,to represent a challenge to the rule of law. Judicial review is seen as a basic right of all citizens. The modern judiciary has responded by developing <span>an extremely strong presumption of statutory interpretation that Parliament does not intend to exclude judicial review. Almost invariably, therefore, the courts will hold that judicial review was not intended to be excluded.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365880474892

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A total ouster clause is one that appears completely to exclude judicial review. The courts are generally hostile to total ouster clauses as they are seen, in constitutional terms,to represent a challenge to the rule of law. Judicial review is seen as a basic right of all citizens. The modern judiciary has responded by developing an extremely strong presumption of statutory interpretation that Parliament does not intend to exclude judicial review. Almost invariably, therefore, the courts will hold that [...].
Answer
judicial review was not intended to be excluded

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
all citizens. The modern judiciary has responded by developing an extremely strong presumption of statutory interpretation that Parliament does not intend to exclude judicial review. Almost invariably, therefore, the courts will hold that <span>judicial review was not intended to be excluded.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365882047756

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
A total ouster clause is one that appears completely to exclude judicial review. The courts are generally hostile to total ouster clauses as they are seen, in constitutional terms, [why?]. Judicial review is seen as a basic right of all citizens.
Answer
to represent a challenge to the rule of law

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A total ouster clause is one that appears completely to exclude judicial review. The courts are generally hostile to total ouster clauses as they are seen, in constitutional terms,to represent a challenge to the rule of law. Judicial review is seen as a basic right of all citizens. The modern judiciary has responded by developing an extremely strong presumption of statutory interpretation that Parliament

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365884669196

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s [...] makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration'.
Answer
31(6)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365886242060

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, the Senior Courts Act [year?], s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration'.
Answer
1981

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365888601356

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, the [Statute] 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration'.
Answer
Senior Courts Act

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to ca

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365890960652

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, the [statute] makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration'.
Answer
Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365893319948

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been [...], judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration'.
Answer
undue delay

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365894892812

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause [...]'.
Answer
substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ead>However, the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 31(6) makes it clear that, where there has been undue delay, judicial review can be refused if the court 'considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration'.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365896727820

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part [subsection?] states that:

'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'.

Answer
54.5(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that: 'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'. </b

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365899087116

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. [Statute] Part 54.5(1) states that:

'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'.

Answer
CPR

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that: 'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'. </sp

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365901446412

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. [Statute] states that:

'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'.

Answer
CPR Part 54.5(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that: 'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'. </b

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365903805708

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that:

'a claim must be filed (a) [...] and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'.

Answer
promptly

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that: 'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365905378572

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that:

'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event [...]'.

Answer
no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that: 'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365906951436

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that:

'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than [...] after the grounds to make the claim first arose'.

Answer
3 months

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The time limit for a judicial review application is short. CPR Part 54.5(1) states that: 'a claim must be filed (a) promptly and (b) in any event no later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365908786444

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The Human Rights Act 1998, s [...] creates a new head of illegality, which can be used in a judicial review action. When using this 'head', the criteria for standing is not the traditional judicial review test discussed above but the test for a 'victim' under the HRA 1998, s 7.
Answer
6(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Human Rights Act 1998, s 6(1) creates a new head of illegality, which can be used in a judicial review action. When using this 'head', the criteria for standing is not the traditional judicial review test discussed

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365910359308

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The [statute], s 6(1) creates a new head of illegality, which can be used in a judicial review action. When using this 'head', the criteria for standing is not the traditional judicial review test discussed above but the test for a 'victim' under the HRA 1998, s 7.
Answer
Human Rights Act 1998

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Human Rights Act 1998, s 6(1) creates a new head of illegality, which can be used in a judicial review action. When using this 'head', the criteria for standing is not the traditional judicial review test

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365912718604

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The Human Rights Act 1998, s 6(1) creates a new head of illegality, which can be used in a judicial review action. When using this 'head', the criteria for standing is not the traditional judicial review test discussed above but the test for a 'victim' under the HRA 1998, s [...].
Answer
7

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
creates a new head of illegality, which can be used in a judicial review action. When using this 'head', the criteria for standing is not the traditional judicial review test discussed above but the test for a 'victim' under the HRA 1998, s <span>7.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365914291468

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The Human Rights Act 1998, s 6(1) creates a new head of illegality, which can be used in a judicial review action. When using this 'head', the criteria for standing is not the traditional judicial review test discussed above but the test for a 'victim' under the [statute].
Answer
HRA 1998, s 7

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
998, s 6(1) creates a new head of illegality, which can be used in a judicial review action. When using this 'head', the criteria for standing is not the traditional judicial review test discussed above but the test for a 'victim' under the <span>HRA 1998, s 7.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365919534348

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
On the one hand, it was entirely clear that the convicted murderers themselves had standing, in [case] to challenge the tariff sentence set by the Home Secretary, as they were directly impacted by it.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Venables

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
On the one hand, it was entirely clear that the convicted murderers themselves had standing, in R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Venables, [1998] AC 407 to challenge the tariff sentence set by the Home Secretary, as they were directly impacted by it.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365921893644

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
On the one hand, it was entirely clear that the convicted murderers themselves had standing, in R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Venables, [1998] AC 407 to challenge the tariff sentence set by the Home Secretary, as [why?].
Answer
they were directly impacted by it

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
>On the one hand, it was entirely clear that the convicted murderers themselves had standing, in R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Venables, [1998] AC 407 to challenge the tariff sentence set by the Home Secretary, as they were directly impacted by it.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365925301516

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, in [Case], the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. T

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365927660812

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was [...]. The Divisional Court held that, in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.
Answer
dismissed for lack of standing

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
dy>However, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365929233676

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in [...], the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.
Answer
criminal cases

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
rtment, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in <span>criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365932379404

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are [who?], and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.
Answer
the Crown and the defendant

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
on of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are <span>the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365934738700

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, [...].
Answer
in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
epartment, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, <span>in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365936311564

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
However, in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bulger, [2001] 3 All ER 449 the application of the father of the murder victim to challenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore [...].
Answer
a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
allenge the setting of the tariff sentence given to the two defendants was dismissed for lack of standing. The Divisional Court held that, in criminal cases, the only two parties with an interest are the Crown and the defendant, and therefore <span>a third party does not have a right to intervene in this context.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365938146572

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one. Following similar principles set out in AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court in [case] stressed that it was important that Mr "W" should have standing to challenge a proposed road scheme on environmental grounds, as he was the chair of a local organisation that had been formed specifically to oppose the road scheme and had appeared at the relevant inquiry.
Answer
Walton v Scottish Ministers

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
isions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one. Following similar principles set out in AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court in <span>Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44 stressed that it was important that Mr Walton should have standing to challenge a proposed road scheme on environmental grounds, as he was the chair of a local organisat

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365941292300

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one. Following similar principles set out in AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court in Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44 stressed that it was important that Mr Walton should have standing to challenge a proposed road scheme on environmental grounds, as [reasoning].
Answer
he was the chair of a local organisation that had been formed specifically to oppose the road scheme and had appeared at the relevant inquiry

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
surance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court in Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44 stressed that it was important that Mr Walton should have standing to challenge a proposed road scheme on environmental grounds, as <span>he was the chair of a local organisation that had been formed specifically to oppose the road scheme and had appeared at the relevant inquiry.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365945224460

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In more recent discussion of standing by the higher courts, the judiciary has been keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one. Following similar principles set out in [Case] [2011] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court in Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44 stressed that it was important that Mr Walton should have standing to challenge a proposed road scheme on environmental grounds, as he was the chair of a local organisation that had been formed specifically to oppose the road scheme and had appeared at the relevant inquiry.
Answer
AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
keen to emphasise the importance to the rule of law of allowing public law decisions to be challenged, even if the connection between the individual and the issue is not a personal or immediate one. Following similar principles set out in <span>AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court in Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44 stressed that it was important that Mr Walton should have standing to challenge a proposed road scheme o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365948108044

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
In [case] [1998] Env LR 111, Sedley J disagreed with the test used in Rose Theatre. In his view, it was not necessary for a claimant to establish that he had a greater right or expectation than any other citizen in order to be granted leave. Judicial review was not about rights: it was about wrongs, in the context of the misuse of public power. He concluded that Dixon, who wished to challenge planning permission to extend a limestone quarry, was not a busybody or a trouble maker. He was perfectly entitled to be concerned about illegality in the planning permission process; he should not be refused leave for lack of standing.
Answer
R v Somerset County Council and Another, ex parte Dixon

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Somerset County Council and Another, ex parte Dixon [1998] Env LR 111, Sedley J disagreed with the test used in Rose Theatre. In his view, it was not necessary for a claimant to establish that he had a greater right or expectation than

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365950729484

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
This liberalising trend has also been reflected in the approach to individuals who seek to challenge administrative decisions, not so much because their own interests are directly impacted but because of their concern, as a citizen, about a particular public issue. For example, in [case], a former editor of The Times newspaper, who had frequently written about EU membership, was held to have standing to challenge the signing of the Treaty of European Union ('the Maastricht Treaty') because of his 'sincere concern for constitutional issues'.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees-Mogg

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
cted in the approach to individuals who seek to challenge administrative decisions, not so much because their own interests are directly impacted but because of their concern, as a citizen, about a particular public issue. For example, in <span>R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees- Mogg [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386, a former editor of The Times newspaper, who had frequently written about EU membership, was held to have standing to challenge the signing of the Treaty of Europea

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365953088780

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
This liberalising trend has also been reflected in the approach to individuals who seek to challenge administrative decisions, not so much because their own interests are directly impacted but because of their concern, as a citizen, about a particular public issue. For example, in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Rees- Mogg [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386, a former editor of The Times newspaper, who had frequently written about EU membership, was held to have standing to challenge the signing of the Treaty of European Union ('the Maastricht Treaty') because of his '[reasoning]'.
Answer
sincere concern for constitutional issues

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
- Mogg [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386, a former editor of The Times newspaper, who had frequently written about EU membership, was held to have standing to challenge the signing of the Treaty of European Union ('the Maastricht Treaty') because of his '<span>sincere concern for constitutional issues'.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365955710220

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Similarly, in the case of [case], the High Court was quite content to give standing to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more overtly political lobbying group.
Answer
R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Similarly, in the case of R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the High Court was quite content to give standing to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365958069516

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
The High Court was quite content to give standing to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more overtly political lobbying group.
Answer
R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Similarly, in the case of R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the High Court was quite content to give standing to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more overtly political lobbying group.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365960428812

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Similarly, in the case of R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the High Court was quite content to give standing to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which [...], and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more overtly political lobbying group.
Answer
conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
nisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which <span>conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more overtly political lobbying group. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365962001676

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Similarly, in the case of R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the High Court was quite content to give standing to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more [...].
Answer
overtly political lobbying group

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
lation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more <span>overtly political lobbying group. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365963574540

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Similarly, in the case of R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the High Court was quite content to give standing to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the [...], arguably a more overtly political lobbying group.
Answer
Campaign Against the Arms Trade

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were Corner House Research, which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the <span>Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more overtly political lobbying group. <span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365965147404

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Similarly, in the case of R (on the application of Corner House Research and another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] EWHC 714 (Admin), the High Court was quite content to give standing to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were [...], which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more overtly political lobbying group.
Answer
Corner House Research

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
anding to two campaigning organisations in order to allow them to challenge the legality of the Director's decision to halt investigations into allegations of bribery in relation to arms contracts with Saudi Arabia. These organisations were <span>Corner House Research, which conducts research and campaign work in relation to environmental and social justice, and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, arguably a more overtly political lobbying group.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365966982412

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd
Answer
World Development Movement Ltd (WDM) sought judicial review of a decision by the Foreign Secretary to make a substantial grant to the government of Malaysia towards the construction of a hydro-electric project on the Pergau Dam using powers in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Further liberalisation of the standing requirement was seen in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386. World Development Movement Ltd (WDM) sought judicial review of a decision by the Foreign Secretary to make a substantial grant to the government of Malaysia towards the construction of a hydro-electric project on the Pergau Dam using powers in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365969341708

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Further liberalisation of the standing requirement was seen in [case]. WDM sought judicial review of a decision by the Foreign Secretary to make a substantial grant to the government of Malaysia towards the construction of a hydro-electric project on the Pergau Dam using powers in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.
Answer
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Further liberalisation of the standing requirement was seen in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386. World Development Movement Ltd (WDM) sought judicial review of a decision by the Foreign Secretary to make a substantial grant to the government of Malaysia towards t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365971701004

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Further liberalisation of the standing requirement was seen in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386. World Development Movement Ltd (WDM) sought judicial review of a decision by the Foreign Secretary to make a substantial grant to the government of Malaysia towards the construction of a hydro-electric project on the Pergau Dam using powers in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: [...]; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.
Answer
the importance of vindicating the rule of law

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ect on the Pergau Dam using powers in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: <span>the importance of vindicating the rule of law; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, g

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365973273868

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Further liberalisation of the standing requirement was seen in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386. World Development Movement Ltd (WDM) sought judicial review of a decision by the Foreign Secretary to make a substantial grant to the government of Malaysia towards the construction of a hydro-electric project on the Pergau Dam using powers in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; [...]; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.
Answer
the likely absence of any other responsible challenger

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
as Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; <span>the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.<span></b

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365974846732

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Further liberalisation of the standing requirement was seen in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386. World Development Movement Ltd (WDM) sought judicial review of a decision by the Foreign Secretary to make a substantial grant to the government of Malaysia towards the construction of a hydro-electric project on the Pergau Dam using powers in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; [...]; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.
Answer
the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
M standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; <span>the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365976419596

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
Further liberalisation of the standing requirement was seen in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 386. World Development Movement Ltd (WDM) sought judicial review of a decision by the Foreign Secretary to make a substantial grant to the government of Malaysia towards the construction of a hydro-electric project on the Pergau Dam using powers in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. In granting WDM standing, Rose LJ stated that there were a number of significant factors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and [...].
Answer
the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ctors in the case that contributed to the decision. These included: the importance of vindicating the rule of law; the likely absence of any other responsible challenger; the nature of the breach of duty against which relief was sought; and <span>the prominent role of the applicants in giving advice, guidance, and assistance on overseas aid.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365978254604

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No 2)
Answer
Here the environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, was held to have standing to challenge a variation of a nuclear processing licence for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. In arriving at the conclusion, Otton J took into account the national and international standing of Greenpeace; its genuine concern for the environment; and the fact that it had 2,500 supporters in Cumbria. Without Greepeace's involvement, he thought that those people it represented might not have had an effective way to bring the disputed issues to court. It would have required an application by an employee of BNFL, or someone living very close to Sellafield, who might well not have had the same degree of expertise as Greenpeace, resulting in a far less well-informed challenge. Standing was therefore accepted.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] Env LR 76. Here the environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, was held to have standing to challenge a variation of a nuclear processing licence for the reprocessing plant at Se

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365980613900

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] Env LR 76. Here the environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, was held to have standing to challenge a variation of a nuclear processing licence for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. In arriving at the conclusion, Otton J took into account [3 factors]. Without Greepeace's involvement, he thought that those people it represented might not have had an effective way to bring the disputed issues to court. It would have required an application by an employee of BNFL, or someone living very close to Sellafield, who might well not have had the same degree of expertise as Greenpeace, resulting in a far less well-informed challenge. Standing was therefore accepted.
Answer
the national and international standing of Greenpeace; its genuine concern for the environment; and the fact that it had 2,500 supporters in Cumbria

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, was held to have standing to challenge a variation of a nuclear processing licence for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. In arriving at the conclusion, Otton J took into account <span>the national and international standing of Greenpeace; its genuine concern for the environment; and the fact that it had 2,500 supporters in Cumbria. Without Greepeace's involvement, he thought that those people it represented might not have had an effective way to bring the disputed issues to court. It would have required an appl

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365982973196

Tags
#jr #law #public
Question
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No 2) [1994] Env LR 76. Here the environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, was held to have standing to challenge a variation of a nuclear processing licence for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. In arriving at the conclusion, Otton J took into account the national and international standing of Greenpeace; its genuine concern for the environment; and the fact that it had [number] supporters in Cumbria. Without Greepeace's involvement, he thought that those people it represented might not have had an effective way to bring the disputed issues to court. It would have required an application by an employee of BNFL, or someone living very close to Sellafield, who might well not have had the same degree of expertise as Greenpeace, resulting in a far less well-informed challenge. Standing was therefore accepted.
Answer
2,500

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
licence for the reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. In arriving at the conclusion, Otton J took into account the national and international standing of Greenpeace; its genuine concern for the environment; and the fact that it had <span>2,500 supporters in Cumbria. Without Greepeace's involvement, he thought that those people it represented might not have had an effective way to bring the disputed issues to court. It would

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365986118924

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
as originally drafted, the ECHR, art [...] allowed for the death penalty. All signatory states to the Convention have, however, subsequently agreed to abolish this sanction.
Answer
2(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
as originally drafted, the ECHR, art 2(1) allowed for the death penalty. All signatory states to the Convention have, however, subsequently agreed to abolish this sanction.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365987691788

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
as originally drafted, the ECHR, art 2(1) allowed for [...]. All signatory states to the Convention have, however, subsequently agreed to abolish this sanction.
Answer
the death penalty

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
as originally drafted, the ECHR, art 2(1) allowed for the death penalty. All signatory states to the Convention have, however, subsequently agreed to abolish this sanction.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365989526796

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article [...] allows the state to take life for what might loosely be termed emergency 'law enforcement purposes'.
Answer
2(2)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ECHR Article 2(2) allows the state to take life for what might loosely be termed emergency 'law enforcement purposes'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365991099660

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 2(2) allows [...].
Answer
the state to take life for what might loosely be termed emergency 'law enforcement purposes'

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ECHR Article 2(2) allows the state to take life for what might loosely be termed emergency 'law enforcement purposes'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365993196812

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The HRA 1998, s [...] provides that, where a court or tribunal finds that an act of a public authority is unlawful, contrary to the HRA 1998, s 6(1), it may grant such remedy as it considers 'just and appropriate'.
Answer
8(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The HRA 1998, s 8(1) provides that, where a court or tribunal finds that an act of a public authority is unlawful, contrary to the HRA 1998, s 6(1), it may grant such remedy as it considers 'just and appropr

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365994769676

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The [statute] provides that, where a court or tribunal finds that an act of a public authority is unlawful, contrary to the HRA 1998, s 6(1), it may grant such remedy as it considers 'just and appropriate'.
Answer
HRA 1998, s 8(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The HRA 1998, s 8(1) provides that, where a court or tribunal finds that an act of a public authority is unlawful, contrary to the HRA 1998, s 6(1), it may grant such remedy as it considers 'just and appropr

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365997128972

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The HRA 1998, s 8(1) provides that, [...]
Answer
where a court or tribunal finds that an act of a public authority is unlawful, contrary to the HRA 1998, s 6(1), it may grant such remedy as it considers 'just and appropriate'.

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The HRA 1998, s 8(1) provides that, where a court or tribunal finds that an act of a public authority is unlawful, contrary to the HRA 1998, s 6(1), it may grant such remedy as it considers 'just and appropriate'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1365998701836

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
The HRA 1998, s 8(1) provides that, where a court or tribunal finds that an act of a public authority is unlawful, contrary to the [statute], it may grant such remedy as it considers 'just and appropriate'.
Answer
HRA 1998, s 6(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The HRA 1998, s 8(1) provides that, where a court or tribunal finds that an act of a public authority is unlawful, contrary to the HRA 1998, s 6(1), it may grant such remedy as it considers 'just and appropriate'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366002109708

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article [...] firstly provides for the substantive right of liberty itself.
Answer
5(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ECHR Article 5(1) firstly provides for the substantive right of liberty itself.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366003682572

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(1) firstly provides for [...].
Answer
the substantive right of liberty itself

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ECHR Article 5(1) firstly provides for the substantive right of liberty itself.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366006566156

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article [...] required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: 'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate'.
Answer
6(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ECHR Article 6(1) required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: 'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective in

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366008139020

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute] required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: 'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate'.
Answer
ECHR Article 6(1)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ECHR Article 6(1) required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: 'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective in

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366010760460

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The maximum period of detention without charge is [...] (PACE 1984, s 44(3)(b)).
Answer
96 hours

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The maximum period of detention without charge is 96 hours (PACE 1984, s 44(3)(b)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366012333324

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The maximum period of detention without charge is 96 hours (PACE 1984, s [...]).
Answer
44(3)(b)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The maximum period of detention without charge is 96 hours (PACE 1984, s 44(3)(b)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366013906188

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The maximum period of detention without charge is 96 hours ([statute], s 44(3)(b)).
Answer
PACE 1984

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The maximum period of detention without charge is 96 hours (PACE 1984, s 44(3)(b)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366016265484

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The maximum period of detention without charge is 96 hours ([statute]).
Answer
PACE 1984, s 44(3)(b)

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The maximum period of detention without charge is 96 hours (PACE 1984, s 44(3)(b)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs