Edited, memorised or added to reading list

on 22-Jul-2016 (Fri)

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

Flashcard 1349291478284

Tags
#co-ownership #land #law
Question
explicitly stated under Insolvancy Act 1986 [Statute] that after one year, the interests of the creditors will prevail apart from where there are “exceptional circumstances”.
Answer
s.335A(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
explicitly stated under s.335A(3) that after one year, the interests of the creditors will prevail apart from where there are “exceptional circumstances”.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361627188492

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 6 of the ECHR can also be violated when there is a breach of the positive obligation on a Convention state to ensure, as far as possible, fair legal process. This was the issue in the highly contentious case of [...], (involving the individual also known as Abu Qatada).
Answer
Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 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
/head>Article 6 of the ECHR can also be violated when there is a breach of the positive obligation on a Convention state to ensure, as far as possible, fair legal process. This was the issue in the highly contentious case of Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1, (involving the individual also known as Abu Qatada).<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361651567884

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A defendant’s silence could be taken into account where there was other strong evidence against him
Answer
Murray (John) v UK


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 Murray, the ECtHR acknowledged the importance of the right to silence to a fair criminal process as protected through the ECHR, art 6, but it also accepted that the right is not absolute. A defendant’s silence could be taken into account where there was other strong evidence against him, as there was against Murray. Where the court did find for Murray was in its conclusion that the ECHR, art 6(1) read with art 6(3)(c) had been violated because of the denial of access

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361655500044

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, ss [...]: a person who, at trial, wishes to rely on any fact or material piece of evidence which he failed to mention to the police during questioning, runs the risk that the trial court will draw adverse inferences from their earlier silence.
Answer
34-37


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
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, ss 34-37: a person who, at trial, wishes to rely on any fact or material piece of evidence which he failed to mention to the police during questioning, runs the risk that the trial court will dr

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361657072908

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act [Year?], ss 34-37: a person who, at trial, wishes to rely on any fact or material piece of evidence which he failed to mention to the police during questioning, runs the risk that the trial court will draw adverse inferences from their earlier silence.
Answer
1994


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
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, ss 34-37: a person who, at trial, wishes to rely on any fact or material piece of evidence which he failed to mention to the police during questioning, runs the risk that the trial cou

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361659432204

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute] 1994, ss 34-37: a person who, at trial, wishes to rely on any fact or material piece of evidence which he failed to mention to the police during questioning, runs the risk that the trial court will draw adverse inferences from their earlier silence.
Answer
Criminal Justice and Public Order 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
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, ss 34-37: a person who, at trial, wishes to rely on any fact or material piece of evidence which he failed to mention to the police during questioning, runs the risk that the trial

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361661791500

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[...]: a person who, at trial, wishes to rely on any fact or material piece of evidence which he failed to mention to the police during questioning, runs the risk that the trial court will draw adverse inferences from their earlier silence.
Answer
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, ss 34-37


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
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, ss 34-37: a person who, at trial, wishes to rely on any fact or material piece of evidence which he failed to mention to the police during questioning, runs the risk that the trial court will dr

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361665461516

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
presumption of innocence protected under the ECHR, art [...].
Answer
6(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
presumption of innocence protected under the ECHR, art 6(2).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361667034380

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[...] protected under the ECHR, art 6(2).
Answer
presumption of innocence


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
presumption of innocence protected under the ECHR, art 6(2).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361676471564

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
under the PACE 1984, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to [...] where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it (PACE 1984, s 58(6)).
Answer
36 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
under the PACE 1984, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it (PACE 1984, s 58(6)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361678044428

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
under the PACE 1984, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where [...] (PACE 1984, s 58(6)).
Answer
the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises 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
under the PACE 1984, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it (PACE 1984, s 58(6)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361679617292

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
under the PACE 1984, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it (PACE 1984, s [...]).
Answer
58(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
html>under the PACE 1984, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it (PACE 1984, s 58(6)).<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361681190156

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it (PACE [year], s 58(6)).
Answer
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
under the PACE 1984, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it (PACE 1984, s 58(6)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361683549452

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it ([Statute]).
Answer
PACE 1984, s 58(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
under the PACE 1984, access to legal advice may be delayed for up to 36 hours where the person is detained for an indictable offence and an officer ranked superintendent or above authorises it (PACE 1984, s 58(6)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361686170892

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to [...] (paragraph 8).
Answer
48 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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361687743756

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours ([...]).
Answer
paragraph 8


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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361689316620

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the Terrorism Act [year], Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).
Answer
2000


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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).</s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361691675916

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the [statute] 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).
Answer
Terrorism 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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8)

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361694035212

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, [who] may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).
Answer
an officer of the rank of superintendent or above


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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361696394508

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule [...], where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).
Answer
8


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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).<

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361699540236

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the [...], where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).
Answer
Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8


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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, where a person has been detained under the Act, an officer of the rank of superintendent or above may also delay access to legal advice for up to 48 hours (paragraph 8).<

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361718938892

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case] the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months. The Privy Council stated that the protection afforded by the ECHR, art 6(1) may be regarded as demanding a standard of performance by the prosecutor which is more exacting than that set by common law, as it does not require the person charged to demonstrate prejudice.
Answer
HM Advocate v JK [2002]


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 HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29, the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months. The Privy Council stated that the protection afforded by the ECHR, art 6(1) may be regar

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361722346764

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article [...] entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.
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) entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361723919628

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute] entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.
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) entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361726541068

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 6(1) entitles everyone to [...] within a reasonable time.
Answer
a fair and public hearing


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) entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361728113932

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 6(1) entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing within [...].
Answer
a reasonable time


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) entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361729686796

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 6(1) entitles [...].
Answer
everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time


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) entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361732570380

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case], the Court of Appeal, overturning a decision of the Administrative Court, held that an administrative panel that was not wholly independent would not necessarily violate the ECHR, art 6(1), if the panel was still able to arrive at a fair and reasonable recommendation.
Answer
R (Beeson) v Dorset CC [2003]


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 (Beeson) v Dorset CC [2003], the Court of Appeal, overturning a decision of the Administrative Court, held that an administrative panel that was not wholly independent would not necessarily violate the ECHR, art 6

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361734929676

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R (Beeson) v Dorset CC [2003], the Court of Appeal, overturning a decision of the Administrative Court, held that an administrative panel that was not wholly independent would not necessarily violate the ECHR, art 6(1), if [...].
Answer
the panel was still able to arrive at a fair and reasonable recommendation


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
body>In R (Beeson) v Dorset CC [2003], the Court of Appeal, overturning a decision of the Administrative Court, held that an administrative panel that was not wholly independent would not necessarily violate the ECHR, art 6(1), if the panel was still able to arrive at a fair and reasonable recommendation.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361736764684

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case], the ECtHR made it clear that even a relatively minor doubt as to the impartiality of a tribunal could constitute a violation of the ECHR, art 6(1).
Answer
McGonnell v UK (2000)


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 McGonnell v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 289, the ECtHR made it clear that even a relatively minor doubt as to the impartiality of a tribunal could constitute a violation of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361739123980

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In McGonnell v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 289, the ECtHR made it clear that even a relatively minor doubt as to the impartiality of a tribunal could constitute a violation of the ECHR, art [...].
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
In McGonnell v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 289, the ECtHR made it clear that even a relatively minor doubt as to the impartiality of a tribunal could constitute a violation of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361746201868

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, Art [...]: Right to a Fair Trial
Answer
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
ECHR, Art 6: Right to a Fair Trial

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361747774732

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute]: Right to a Fair Trial
Answer
ECHR, Art 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
ECHR, Art 6: Right to a Fair Trial

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361750134028

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, Art 6: [...]
Answer
Right to a Fair Trial


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, Art 6: Right to a Fair Trial

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361751969036

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The Terrorism Act 2000 seeks consistency with the ECHR, art [...] by providing that any detention of a terrorist suspect beyond 48 hours can only continue with judicial approval.
Answer
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
The Terrorism Act 2000 seeks consistency with the ECHR, art 5(3) by providing that any detention of a terrorist suspect beyond 48 hours can only continue with judicial approval.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361753541900

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The Terrorism Act 2000 seeks consistency with the ECHR, art 5(3) by providing that any detention of a terrorist suspect beyond 48 hours can only continue [...].
Answer
with judicial approval


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 Terrorism Act 2000 seeks consistency with the ECHR, art 5(3) by providing that any detention of a terrorist suspect beyond 48 hours can only continue with judicial approval.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361755114764

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The Terrorism Act 2000 seeks consistency with the ECHR, art 5(3) by providing that any detention of a terrorist suspect [...] can only continue with judicial approval.
Answer
beyond 48 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 Terrorism Act 2000 seeks consistency with the ECHR, art 5(3) by providing that any detention of a terrorist suspect beyond 48 hours can only continue with judicial approval.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361757736204

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in [case], detention without charge and without judicial authorisation – the detention after an initial 48 period had been authorised by the Home Secretary – for periods of more than four days and six hours was considered too long for the purposes of the ECHR, art 5(3).
Answer
Brogan v UK


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 Brogan v UK, detention without charge and without judicial authorisation – the detention after an initial 48 period had been authorised by the Home Secretary – for periods of more than four days an

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361760095500

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in Brogan v UK, detention without charge and without judicial authorisation – the detention after an initial 48 period had been authorised by the Home Secretary – for periods of [...] was considered too long for the purposes of the ECHR, art 5(3).
Answer
more than four days and six 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
in Brogan v UK, detention without charge and without judicial authorisation – the detention after an initial 48 period had been authorised by the Home Secretary – for periods of more than four days and six hours was considered too long for the purposes of the ECHR, art 5(3).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361764289804

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph [...],).
Answer
29


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
or judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph <span>29,).<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361765862668

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule [...], paragraph 29,).
Answer
8


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 senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph 29,).<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361767435532

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest ([...], Schedule 8, paragraph 29,).
Answer
Terrorism Act 2000


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 senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph 29,).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361769008396

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest ([...],).
Answer
Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph 29


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 senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph 29,).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361770581260

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A [...] may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph 29,).
Answer
senior judge or designated District Judge


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 senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Sche

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361772154124

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of [...] (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph 29,).
Answer
up to seven days from the time of arrest


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 senior judge or designated District Judge may authorise further detention under warrant of a person arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 for a period of up to seven days from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph 29,).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361773989132

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The present provisions allow the police to detain a person for [...] on their own authority from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(3)).
Answer
up to 48 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 present provisions allow the police to detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(3)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361775561996

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The present provisions allow the police to detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, s [...]).
Answer
41(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
The present provisions allow the police to detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(3)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361777134860

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The present provisions allow the police to detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority from the time of arrest ([...]).
Answer
Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(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
The present provisions allow the police to detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(3)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361783688460

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for [...] can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher (PACE 1984, s 42(1)).
Answer
up to 36 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
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher (PACE 1984, s 42(1)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361785261324

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by [...] (PACE 1984, s 42(1)).
Answer
a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher


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
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher (PACE 1984, s 42(1)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361786834188

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher (PACE 1984, s [...]).
Answer
42(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
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher (PACE 1984, s 42(1)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361788407052

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher ([...], s 42(1)).
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
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher (PACE 1984, s 42(1)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361789979916

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher ([...]).
Answer
PACE 1984, s 42(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
Where certain grounds are satisfied, detaining a person for up to 36 hours can be authorised by a police officer with the rank of superintendent or higher (PACE 1984, s 42(1)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361791552780

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The basic length of the detention without charge is for [...] (PACE 1984, s 41(7))
Answer
24 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 basic length of the detention without charge is for 24 hours (PACE 1984, s 41(7))

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361793125644

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The basic length of the detention without charge is for 24 hours (PACE 1984, s [...])
Answer
41(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
The basic length of the detention without charge is for 24 hours (PACE 1984, s 41(7))

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361794698508

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The basic length of the detention without charge is for 24 hours ([...], s 41(7))
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 basic length of the detention without charge is for 24 hours (PACE 1984, s 41(7))

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361796271372

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The basic length of the detention without charge is for 24 hours ([...])
Answer
PACE 1984, s 41(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
The basic length of the detention without charge is for 24 hours (PACE 1984, s 41(7))

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361798368524

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, s [...], power is given to arrest a person without warrant whom the officer 'reasonably suspects is a terrorist'.
Answer
41(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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(1), power is given to arrest a person without warrant whom the officer 'reasonably suspects is a terrorist'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361799941388

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the [...], s 41(1), power is given to arrest a person without warrant whom the officer 'reasonably suspects is a terrorist'.
Answer
Terrorism Act 2000


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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(1), power is given to arrest a person without warrant whom the officer 'reasonably suspects is a terrorist'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361801514252

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the [...], power is given to arrest a person without warrant whom the officer 'reasonably suspects is a terrorist'.
Answer
Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(1), power is given to arrest a person without warrant whom the officer 'reasonably suspects is a terrorist'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361803087116

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(1), power is given to arrest a person without warrant whom the officer [...].
Answer
'reasonably suspects is a terrorist'


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
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(1), power is given to arrest a person without warrant whom the officer 'reasonably suspects is a terrorist'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361808067852

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in the case of [case] the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a 16-hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.
Answer
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010]


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 the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a 16-hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to lib

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361810427148

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a [...] curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.
Answer
16-hour


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 the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a 16-hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subj

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361812000012

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a 16-hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live [...] from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.
Answer
150 miles


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 the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP, [2010] UKSC 24 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of a 16-hour curfew and the requirement that the appellant had to live 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361814097164

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case], the House of Lords upheld the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal that certain non-derogating control orders imposed by the Home Secretary under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 did in fact amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Answer
Re JJ [2007] UKHL 45


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 Re JJ [2007] UKHL 45, the House of Lords upheld the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal that certain non-derogating control orders imposed by the Home Secretary under the Prevention of Terrori

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361818553612

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[case], the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art 5(4) had been violated because there had been no judicial control of the applicants' detention. The Home Secretary, rather than a court, had decided on the length of the tariff to be served and there had been no form of review.
Answer
T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121


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
T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121, the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art 5(4) had been violated because there had been no judicial control of the applicants' detention. The Home Secretary, rather than a court, had decide

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361820912908

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121, the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art 5(4) had been violated because [...]. The Home Secretary, rather than a court, had decided on the length of the tariff to be served and there had been no form of review.
Answer
there had been no judicial control of the applicants' detention


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
T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121, the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art 5(4) had been violated because there had been no judicial control of the applicants' detention. The Home Secretary, rather than a court, had decided on the length of the tariff to be served and there had been no form of review.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361822747916

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case], the ECtHR held that delays of 21 months and 2 years between reviews of the applicant's continued detention amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 5(4).
Answer
Hirst v UK (2001) ECHR 477


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 Hirst v UK (2001) ECHR 477, the ECtHR held that delays of 21 months and 2 years between reviews of the applicant's continued detention amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 5(4).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361825107212

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In Hirst v UK (2001) ECHR 477, the ECtHR held that delays of [...] between reviews of the applicant's continued detention amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 5(4).
Answer
21 months and 2 years


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 Hirst v UK (2001) ECHR 477, the ECtHR held that delays of 21 months and 2 years between reviews of the applicant's continued detention amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 5(4).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361827728652

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article [...] states that a person who is arrested and detained 'shall be entitled' ('speedily') to challenge in court the lawfulness of the action taken against them.
Answer
5(4)


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(4) states that a person who is arrested and detained 'shall be entitled' ('speedily') to challenge in court the lawfulness of the action taken against them.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361829301516

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute] states that a person who is arrested and detained 'shall be entitled' ('speedily') to challenge in court the lawfulness of the action taken against them.
Answer
ECHR Article 5(4)


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(4) states that a person who is arrested and detained 'shall be entitled' ('speedily') to challenge in court the lawfulness of the action taken against them.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361831660812

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(4) states that [...]
Answer
a person who is arrested and detained 'shall be entitled' ('speedily') to challenge in court the lawfulness of the action taken against them.


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(4) states that a person who is arrested and detained 'shall be entitled' ('speedily') to challenge in court the lawfulness of the action taken against them.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361833233676

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(4) states that a person who is arrested and detained 'shall be entitled' ('speedily') [...] taken against them.
Answer
to challenge in court the lawfulness of the action


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(4) states that a person who is arrested and detained 'shall be entitled' ('speedily') to challenge in court the lawfulness of the action taken against them.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361835068684

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case], the ECtHR held that detention after arrest of four days and six hours violated the ECHR, art 5(3) in that the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge. This seems to suggest that, while this question should be judged in the context of the particular case, there are some periods of delay the court will always hold to be excessive.
Answer
Brogan v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 117


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 Brogan v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 117, the ECtHR held that detention after arrest of four days and six hours violated the ECHR, art 5(3) in that the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge. This seems t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361837690124

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In Brogan v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 117, the ECtHR held that detention after arrest of [...] violated the ECHR, art 5(3) in that the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge. This seems to suggest that, while this question should be judged in the context of the particular case, there are some periods of delay the court will always hold to be excessive.
Answer
four days and six 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
In Brogan v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 117, the ECtHR held that detention after arrest of four days and six hours violated the ECHR, art 5(3) in that the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge. This seems to suggest that, while this question should be judged in the context of t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361841097996

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article [...]: the right of a person arrested and detained to be 'brought promptly before a judge'.
Answer
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
ECHR Article 5(3): the right of a person arrested and detained to be 'brought promptly before a judge'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361842670860

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[...]: the right of a person arrested and detained to be 'brought promptly before a judge'.
Answer
ECHR Article 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
ECHR Article 5(3): the right of a person arrested and detained to be 'brought promptly before a judge'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361844243724

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(3): the right of a person arrested and detained to [...].
Answer
be 'brought promptly before a judge'


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(3): the right of a person arrested and detained to be 'brought promptly before a judge'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361845816588

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(3): the right [...].
Answer
of a person arrested and detained to be 'brought promptly before a judge'


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(3): the right of a person arrested and detained to be 'brought promptly before a judge'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361848438028

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article [...] requires that an arrested person be informed promptly and clearly of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them.
Answer
5(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 5(2) requires that an arrested person be informed promptly and clearly of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361850010892

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute] requires that an arrested person be informed promptly and clearly of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them.
Answer
ECHR Article 5(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 5(2) requires that an arrested person be informed promptly and clearly of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361852370188

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(2) requires that an arrested person be [...].
Answer
informed promptly and clearly of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them


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(2) requires that an arrested person be informed promptly and clearly of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361853943052

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(2) requires that [...].
Answer
an arrested person be informed promptly and clearly of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them


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(2) requires that an arrested person be informed promptly and clearly of the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361857613068

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article [...] is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so'.
Answer
5(1)(c)


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)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purp

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361859185932

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute] is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so'.
Answer
ECHR Article 5(1)(c)


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)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purp

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361861545228

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(1)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty [...]
Answer
where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained


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)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361863904524

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(1)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of [...] on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so'.
Answer
bringing him before the competent legal authority


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><head>ECHR Article 5(1)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so'.<

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361865477388

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(1)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on [...] or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so'.
Answer
reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence


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 most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on <span>reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so'.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361867050252

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(1)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it [...] or fleeing after having done so'.
Answer
is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence


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
s that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it <span>is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so'.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361868623116

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR Article 5(1)(c) is the most important of these in terms of police powers: it states that a person may be deprived of their liberty where that person is being lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or [...]'.
Answer
fleeing after having done so


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
lawfully arrested and detained 'for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or <span>fleeing after having done so'.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361871768844

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 5(1) of the ECHR firstly provides for the substantive right of liberty itself. It then goes on to say that no one can be deprived of their liberty unless this is done [...] and then only under the specific circumstances outlined in sub-paragraphs (a)–(f). These sub-paragraphs define a variety of situations in which a person may be legitimately deprived of their liberty by the state.
Answer
'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by 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
Article 5(1) of the ECHR firstly provides for the substantive right of liberty itself. It then goes on to say that no one can be deprived of their liberty unless this is done 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law' and then only under the specific circumstances outlined in sub-paragraphs (a)–(f). These sub-paragraphs define a variety of situations in which a person may be legitimately deprived o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361874128140

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Guarantees against arbitrary arrest and detention are provided by the ECHR, art [...].
Answer
5


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
Guarantees against arbitrary arrest and detention are provided by the ECHR, art 5.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361875701004

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Guarantees against arbitrary arrest and detention are provided by the [statute].
Answer
ECHR, art 5


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
Guarantees against arbitrary arrest and detention are provided by the ECHR, art 5.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361878060300

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Guarantees [...] are provided by the ECHR, art 5.
Answer
against arbitrary arrest and detention


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
Guarantees against arbitrary arrest and detention are provided by the ECHR, art 5.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361879633164

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, Art [...]: Right to Liberty and Security of the Person
Answer
5


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, Art 5: Right to Liberty and Security of the Person

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361881206028

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute]: Right to Liberty and Security of the Person
Answer
ECHR, Art 5


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, Art 5: Right to Liberty and Security of the Person

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1361883565324

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, Art 5: [...]
Answer
Right to Liberty and Security of the Person


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, Art 5: Right to Liberty and Security of the Person

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1362054221068

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
Note that the phrase 'to act' includes a failure to act: HRA 1998, s [...].
Answer
6(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
Note that the phrase 'to act' includes a failure to act: HRA 1996, s 6(6).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1362055793932

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
Note that the phrase 'to act' includes a failure to act: [statute].
Answer
HRA 1998, s 6(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
Note that the phrase 'to act' includes a failure to act: HRA 1996, s 6(6).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1362058153228

Tags
#hra #law #public
Question
Note that the phrase 'to act' [...]: HRA 1998, s 6(6).
Answer
includes a failure to 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
Note that the phrase 'to act' includes a failure to act: HRA 1996, s 6(6).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1362093018380

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, Art [...]: Right to Life
Answer
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, Art 2: Right to Life

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1362094591244

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[statute]: Right to Life
Answer
ECHR, Art 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, Art 2: Right to Life

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1362097999116

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, Art 2: [...]
Answer
Right to Life


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, Art 2: Right to Life

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 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







Flashcard 1366879767820

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The present provisions allow the police to detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, s [...]).
Answer
41(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
The present provisions allow the police to detain a person for up to 48 hours on their own authority from the time of arrest (Terrorism Act 2000, s 41(3)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366881340684

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
suspects are entitled to consult a solicitor in private at any time.
Answer
PACE 1984, s 58


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
Under the PACE 1984, s 58, suspects are entitled to consult a solicitor in private at any time.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1366883699980

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the PACE 1984, s [...], suspects are entitled to consult a solicitor in private at any time.
Answer
58


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
Under the PACE 1984, s 58, suspects are entitled to consult a solicitor in private at any time.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1367665675532

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29, the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was [...].
Answer
27 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
In HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29, the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1367667248396

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29, the delay, for a [...], between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months.
Answer
14-year-old


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 HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29, the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1367669083404

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29
Answer
The delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months. The Privy Council stated that the protection afforded by the ECHR, art 6(1) may be regarded as demanding a standard of performance by the prosecutor which is more exacting than that set by common law, as it does not require the person charged to demonstrate prejudice.


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 HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29, the delay, for a 14-year-old, between the date of charge and the date of trial was 27 months. The Privy Council stated that the protection afforded by the ECHR, art 6(1) may be reg

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370050661644

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Jordan v UK (2001) 37 EHRR 52, McKerr v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 553, Kelly & Others v UK Judgment of 4 May 2001, and Shanaghan v UK (2001) 11 BHRC 1 are all cases in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of the ECHR, art 2 on the ground that [...].
Answer
the inquests held into killings by security forces in Northern Ireland were flawed


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 52, McKerr v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 553, Kelly & Others v UK Judgment of 4 May 2001, and Shanaghan v UK (2001) 11 BHRC 1 are all cases in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of the ECHR, art 2 on the ground that <span>the inquests held into killings by security forces in Northern Ireland were flawed.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370052234508

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[cases (4)] are all cases in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of the ECHR, art 2 on the ground that the inquests held into killings by security forces in Northern Ireland were flawed.
Answer
Jordan v UK (2001) 37 EHRR 52, McKerr v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 553, Kelly & Others v UK Judgment of 4 May 2001, and Shanaghan v UK (2001) 11 BHRC 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
Jordan v UK (2001) 37 EHRR 52, McKerr v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 553, Kelly & Others v UK Judgment of 4 May 2001, and Shanaghan v UK (2001) 11 BHRC 1 are all cases in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found violations of the ECHR, art 2 on the ground that the inquests held into killings by security forces in Northern Ir

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370055904524

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life
Answer
Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245


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
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370058263820

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article [...] of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245.
Answer
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
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370059836684

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a [...] - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245.
Answer
positive obligation on the State to protect life


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
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370061409548

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to [...]. However, it can also include an operational obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life but failed to take appropriate measures.
Answer
have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide


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
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include an operational obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370062982412

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include [...]. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life but failed to take appropriate measures.
Answer
an operational obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide


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
can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include <span>an operational obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370064555276

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include an operational obligation on states to [...] when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life but failed to take appropriate measures.
Answer
take preventative measures to protect individuals


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 State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include an operational obligation on states to <span>take preventative measures to protect individuals when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370066128140

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include an operational obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when [...]. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life but failed to take appropriate measures.
Answer
their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide


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
EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include an operational obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when <span>their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370067701004

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include an operational obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if [...] but failed to take appropriate measures.
Answer
they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life


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
l obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if <span>they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life but failed to take appropriate measures.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370069273868

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 2 of the ECHR can also impose a positive obligation on the State to protect life - see Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245. In its most basic form this requires states to have criminal justice systems that punish and deter homicide. However, it can also include an operational obligation on states to take preventative measures to protect individuals when their life is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life but [...].
Answer
failed to take appropriate measures


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
ife is at risk from other individuals or from suicide. This obligation is not as broad as it sounds, as liability will only attach to state authorities if they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life but <span>failed to take appropriate measures.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370070846732

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51
Answer
An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 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
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 is an instructive case on these points. An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full pu

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370072681740

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51


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 (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 is an instructive case on these points. An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full pu

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370075827468

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 is an instructive case on these points. An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to [...]. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
investigate deaths involving agents of the state


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 state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to <span>investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was n

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370077400332

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 is an instructive case on these points. An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to [...], stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody


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 full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to <span>protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths invo

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370078973196

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 is an instructive case on these points. An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that [...]. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives


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
, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that <span>reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370080546060

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 is an instructive case on these points. An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had [...]. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist


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
n to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had <span>placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370082118924

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 is an instructive case on these points. An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: [...]. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family


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
gime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: <span>the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370083691788

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51 is an instructive case on these points. An inmate of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution ('YOI'), Zahid Mubarek, was murdered by his cellmate. The Home Office declined to hold a full public enquiry on the basis that there had been a prison investigation, an enquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality, and a criminal trial. In reviewing this case, the House of Lords emphasised the importance of the state's duty to protect life, particularly of those involuntarily in custody, stressing that reasonable care must be taken to safeguard their lives. Further, they re-stated the importance of the state's obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to investigate deaths involving agents of the state. The applicable state agent in this case was the regime at the YOI that had placed the deceased in a cell with a known violent racist. Their Lordships specified that, whilst there was no single template for such investigations, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore [outcome].
Answer
seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 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
s, there was an irreducible core at the heart of the article 2 duty: the investigation must be public, independent and involve the full participation of the family. Such an investigation had not taken place in this case and this was therefore <span>seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370086051084

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, Art [...]: Freedom from Torture, and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
Answer
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
ECHR, Art 3: Freedom from Torture, and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370087623948

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, Art 3: [...]
Answer
Freedom from Torture, and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment


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, Art 3: Freedom from Torture, and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370089196812

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Freedom from Torture, and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
Answer
ECHR, Art 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
ECHR, Art 3: Freedom from Torture, and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370091556108

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
It is clear that the ECHR, art 3 imposes both [...] on public authorities. As noted above, the negative duty that is imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is an absolute one: 'no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.
Answer
negative and positive duties


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
It is clear that the ECHR, art 3 imposes both negative and positive duties on public authorities. As noted above, the negative duty that is imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is an absolute one: 'no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370093128972

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
It is clear that the ECHR, art 3 imposes both negative and positive duties on public authorities. As noted above, the negative duty that is imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is a/an [absolute / qualified] one: 'no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.
Answer
absolute


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
It is clear that the ECHR, art 3 imposes both negative and positive duties on public authorities. As noted above, the negative duty that is imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is an absolute one: 'no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370095488268

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
It is clear that the ECHR, art 3 imposes both negative and positive duties on public authorities. As noted above, the negative duty that is imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is an absolute one: '[...]'.
Answer
no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment


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
It is clear that the ECHR, art 3 imposes both negative and positive duties on public authorities. As noted above, the negative duty that is imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is an absolute one: 'no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370097061132

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 6 of the ECHR can also be violated when [...]. This was the issue in the highly contentious case of Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1, (involving the individual also known as Abu Qatada).
Answer
there is a breach of the positive obligation on a Convention state to ensure, as far as possible, fair legal 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
Article 6 of the ECHR can also be violated when there is a breach of the positive obligation on a Convention state to ensure, as far as possible, fair legal process. This was the issue in the highly contentious case of Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1, (involving the individual also known as Abu Qatada).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370098633996

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case] the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
R v Horncastle


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 Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive exten

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370100993292

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that [...]. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention


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 Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370102566156

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the [statute] contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
Criminal Justice Act 2003


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 Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR,

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370104925452

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained [...] so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
sufficient safeguards


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 Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.</

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370106498316

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of [...] under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
hearsay evidence


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 Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370108071180

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would [...]. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.
Answer
not breach the Convention


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
span>In R v Horncastle the Supreme Court held that the admission of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contained sufficient safeguards so that convictions based solely, or to a decisive extent, on such statements would not breach the Convention. In the instant case no breach of the ECHR, art 6 was found.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370110430476

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The case of [case] again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial.
Answer
Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 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 case of Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1 again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370112789772

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The case of Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1 again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is [...]. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial.
Answer
not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits


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 case of Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1 again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370116197644

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1
Answer
The applicants were two heroin addicts (husband and wife) in the process of withdrawal and had been advised by their solicitor not to answer the questions put to them by the police because, (unlike the police doctor), he believed that they were not fit to be interviewed. The case again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial. The trial judge, in accordance with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 34, had directed the jury that inferences could be drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, the problem had been the trial judge's failure to direct that adverse inferences should only be drawn where the jury was satisfied that the refusal to comment could only be based on the defendants having no answer to the case put to them by the police or one which would not stand up to cross-examination.


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 applicants in Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1 were two heroin addicts (husband and wife) in the process of withdrawal and had been advised by their solicitor not to answer the questions put to them by the police because, (unlike the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370118556940

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The applicants were two heroin addicts (husband and wife) in the process of withdrawal and had been advised by their solicitor not to answer the questions put to them by the police because, (unlike the police doctor), he believed that they were not fit to be interviewed. The case again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial. The trial judge, in accordance with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 34, had directed the jury that inferences could be drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, the problem had been the trial judge's failure to direct that adverse inferences should only be drawn where the jury was satisfied that the refusal to comment could only be based on the defendants having no answer to the case put to them by the police or one which would not stand up to cross-examination.
Answer
Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 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 applicants in Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1 were two heroin addicts (husband and wife) in the process of withdrawal and had been advised by their solicitor not to answer the questions put to them by the police because, (unlike the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370120916236

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The applicants in Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1 were two heroin addicts (husband and wife) in the process of withdrawal and had been advised by their solicitor not to answer the questions put to them by the police because, (unlike the police doctor), he believed that they were not fit to be interviewed. The case again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial. The trial judge, in accordance with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s [...], had directed the jury that inferences could be drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, the problem had been the trial judge's failure to direct that adverse inferences should only be drawn where the jury was satisfied that the refusal to comment could only be based on the defendants having no answer to the case put to them by the police or one which would not stand up to cross-examination.
Answer
34


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
ight, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial. The trial judge, in accordance with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s <span>34, had directed the jury that inferences could be drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370122489100

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The applicants in Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1 were two heroin addicts (husband and wife) in the process of withdrawal and had been advised by their solicitor not to answer the questions put to them by the police because, (unlike the police doctor), he believed that they were not fit to be interviewed. The case again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial. The trial judge, in accordance with the [statute], had directed the jury that inferences could be drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, the problem had been the trial judge's failure to direct that adverse inferences should only be drawn where the jury was satisfied that the refusal to comment could only be based on the defendants having no answer to the case put to them by the police or one which would not stand up to cross-examination.
Answer
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 34


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 treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial. The trial judge, in accordance with the <span>Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 34, had directed the jury that inferences could be drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370124848396

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The applicants in Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1 were two heroin addicts (husband and wife) in the process of withdrawal and had been advised by their solicitor not to answer the questions put to them by the police because, (unlike the police doctor), he believed that they were not fit to be interviewed. The case again illustrated the ECtHR's approach in this area, which is not to treat the right to silence as an absolute right, but to treat each case on its merits. On the facts, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of their article 6 rights at their criminal trial. The trial judge, in accordance with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 34, had directed the jury that inferences could be drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, the problem had been the trial judge's failure to direct that adverse inferences should only be drawn where [...].
Answer
the jury was satisfied that the refusal to comment could only be based on the defendants having no answer to the case put to them by the police or one which would not stand up to cross-examination


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
drawn from the applicants' refusal to comment at the police interview. This itself was not incompatible with the ECHR, art 6. However, the problem had been the trial judge's failure to direct that adverse inferences should only be drawn where <span>the jury was satisfied that the refusal to comment could only be based on the defendants having no answer to the case put to them by the police or one which would not stand up to cross-examination.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370126945548

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293
Answer
The applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magistrates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.


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 the case of Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293, the applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magi

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370129304844

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magistrates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.
Answer
Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293


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 the case of Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293, the applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magi

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370131664140

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In the case of Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293, the applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magistrates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to [...]. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.
Answer
the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case


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
strates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to <span>the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370133237004

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In the case of Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293, the applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magistrates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where [...], the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.
Answer
deprivation of liberty is at stake


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
o appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where <span>deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so the ECtHR held that it was in the i

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370134809868

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In the case of Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293, the applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magistrates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice [...]. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.
Answer
call in principle for legal representation


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
representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice <span>call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.<

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370136382732

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In the case of Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293, the applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magistrates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so [...].
Answer
the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation


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
he penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so <span>the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370137955596

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In the case of Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293, the applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there [...] in a hearing before the magistrates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In deciding whether free legal representation should be provided, the ECtHR had regard to the severity of the penalty at stake and the complexity of the case. Where deprivation of liberty is at stake, the interests of justice call in principle for legal representation. In this case the applicant faced a maximum term of three years in prison and so the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.
Answer
had been a failure to provide him with legal representation


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 the case of Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293, the applicant was imprisoned for non- payment of the community charge. He complained that there had been a failure to provide him with legal representation in a hearing before the magistrates dealing with his failure to pay. The magistrates had a discretion to appoint a solicitor but he had no entitlement to free legal representation. In de

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370139528460

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, art [...] is only engaged in civil matters when there is a determination of a civil right or obligation.
Answer
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
ECHR, art 6 is only engaged in civil matters when there is a determination of a civil right or obligation.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370141101324

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
ECHR, art 6 is only engaged in civil matters when [...].
Answer
there is a determination of a civil right or obligation


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, art 6 is only engaged in civil matters when there is a determination of a civil right or obligation.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370142674188

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the PACE 1984, ss [...], detention beyond 36 hours may be authorised, but only by a magistrates' court granting a warrant
Answer
43(1) and 44(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
Under the PACE 1984, ss 43(1) and 44(1), detention beyond 36 hours may be authorised, but only by a magistrates' court granting a warrant

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370144247052

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the PACE 1984, ss 43(1) and 44(1), detention beyond [...] may be authorised, but only by a magistrates' court granting a warrant
Answer
36 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
Under the PACE 1984, ss 43(1) and 44(1), detention beyond 36 hours may be authorised, but only by a magistrates' court granting a warrant

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370145819916

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Under the PACE 1984, ss 43(1) and 44(1), detention beyond 36 hours may be authorised, but only by [...]
Answer
a magistrates' court granting a warrant


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
Under the PACE 1984, ss 43(1) and 44(1), detention beyond 36 hours may be authorised, but only by a magistrates' court granting a warrant

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370147392780

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97
Answer
Often known as the 'Death on the Rock' case, it was brought by the relatives of three alleged IRA members who were shot dead in Gibraltar by members of the British security forces. The UK claimed that its agents believed the three suspects were about to detonate a bomb. The court found no violation of the ECHR, art 2 in relation to the shooting by the soldiers themselves. It accepted that the soldiers honestly believed, in the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find a breach by the UK in relation to the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation.


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
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97 is one of the leading Strasbourg cases on the ECHR, art 2 and provides guidance on dealing with the situations outlined above. Often known as the 'Death on the Rock' case, it was brought

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370149752076

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Often known as the 'Death on the Rock' case, it was brought by the relatives of three alleged IRA members who were shot dead in Gibraltar by members of the British security forces. The UK claimed that its agents believed the three suspects were about to detonate a bomb. The court found no violation of the ECHR, art 2 in relation to the shooting by the soldiers themselves. It accepted that the soldiers honestly believed, in the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find a breach by the UK in relation to the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation.
Answer
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97


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
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97 is one of the leading Strasbourg cases on the ECHR, art 2 and provides guidance on dealing with the situations outlined above. Often known as the 'Death on the Rock' case, it was brought

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370153684236

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97 is one of the leading Strasbourg cases on the ECHR, art 2 and provides guidance on dealing with the situations outlined above. Often known as the 'Death on the Rock' case, it was brought by the relatives of three alleged IRA members who were shot dead in Gibraltar by members of the British security forces. The UK claimed that its agents believed the three suspects were about to detonate a bomb. The court found no violation of the ECHR, art 2 in relation to the shooting by the soldiers themselves. It accepted that the soldiers [...]. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find a breach by the UK in relation to the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation.
Answer
honestly believed, in the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life


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
h security forces. The UK claimed that its agents believed the three suspects were about to detonate a bomb. The court found no violation of the ECHR, art 2 in relation to the shooting by the soldiers themselves. It accepted that the soldiers <span>honestly believed, in the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find a breach by the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370155257100

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97 is one of the leading Strasbourg cases on the ECHR, art 2 and provides guidance on dealing with the situations outlined above. Often known as the 'Death on the Rock' case, it was brought by the relatives of three alleged IRA members who were shot dead in Gibraltar by members of the British security forces. The UK claimed that its agents believed the three suspects were about to detonate a bomb. The court found no violation of the ECHR, art 2 in relation to the shooting by the soldiers themselves. It accepted that the soldiers honestly believed, in the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus [...]. However, the court did find a breach by the UK in relation to the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation.
Answer
perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives


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 the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus <span>perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find a breach by the UK in relation to the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370156829964

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97 is one of the leading Strasbourg cases on the ECHR, art 2 and provides guidance on dealing with the situations outlined above. Often known as the 'Death on the Rock' case, it was brought by the relatives of three alleged IRA members who were shot dead in Gibraltar by members of the British security forces. The UK claimed that its agents believed the three suspects were about to detonate a bomb. The court found no violation of the ECHR, art 2 in relation to the shooting by the soldiers themselves. It accepted that the soldiers honestly believed, in the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find [...] in relation to the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation.
Answer
a breach by the UK


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 suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find <span>a breach by the UK in relation to the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370158402828

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97 is one of the leading Strasbourg cases on the ECHR, art 2 and provides guidance on dealing with the situations outlined above. Often known as the 'Death on the Rock' case, it was brought by the relatives of three alleged IRA members who were shot dead in Gibraltar by members of the British security forces. The UK claimed that its agents believed the three suspects were about to detonate a bomb. The court found no violation of the ECHR, art 2 in relation to the shooting by the soldiers themselves. It accepted that the soldiers honestly believed, in the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find a breach by the UK in relation to [...].
Answer
the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation


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
them from causing serious loss of life. The actions which the soldiers took, in obedience to superior orders, were thus perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives. However, the court did find a breach by the UK in relation to <span>the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370159975692

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
[case] lays down two obligations which are inherent in the state's duty to secure enjoyment of article 2 rights. The first is to investigate all situations in which the state directly takes life. The rationale for this lies in the fact that it is primarily the responsibility of the states themselves to investigate and remedy human rights breaches. If the state carries out a proper investigation, then there will be no need to invoke the ECHR, art 2 in this respect. The second is the more obvious and fundamental duty to refrain from unlawful killing. The question of exactly what constitutes an unlawful killing is often complicated by situations in which the agents of the state believe (or at least claim they believe) that the use of deadly force is necessary. This obligation is therefore more likely to be framed, as it was in McCann, as an issue over the duty of command, control and training, so that agents of the state are able to judge when to apply use of deadly force and are restrained from applying it when it is not required.
Answer
McCann


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
McCann lays down two obligations which are inherent in the state's duty to secure enjoyment of article 2 rights. The first is to investigate all situations in which the state directly takes lif

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370162334988

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
McCann lays down two obligations which are inherent in the state's duty to secure enjoyment of article 2 rights. The first is to [...]. The rationale for this lies in the fact that it is primarily the responsibility of the states themselves to investigate and remedy human rights breaches. If the state carries out a proper investigation, then there will be no need to invoke the ECHR, art 2 in this respect. The second is the more obvious and fundamental duty to refrain from unlawful killing. The question of exactly what constitutes an unlawful killing is often complicated by situations in which the agents of the state believe (or at least claim they believe) that the use of deadly force is necessary. This obligation is therefore more likely to be framed, as it was in McCann, as an issue over the duty of command, control and training, so that agents of the state are able to judge when to apply use of deadly force and are restrained from applying it when it is not required.
Answer
investigate all situations in which the state directly takes life


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
McCann lays down two obligations which are inherent in the state's duty to secure enjoyment of article 2 rights. The first is to investigate all situations in which the state directly takes life. The rationale for this lies in the fact that it is primarily the responsibility of the states themselves to investigate and remedy human rights breaches. If the state carries out a pro

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370163907852

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
McCann lays down two obligations which are inherent in the state's duty to secure enjoyment of article 2 rights. The first is to investigate all situations in which the state directly takes life. The rationale for this lies in the fact that it is primarily the responsibility of the states themselves to investigate and remedy human rights breaches. If the state carries out a proper investigation, then there will be no need to invoke the ECHR, art 2 in this respect. The second is the more obvious and fundamental duty to [...]. The question of exactly what constitutes an unlawful killing is often complicated by situations in which the agents of the state believe (or at least claim they believe) that the use of deadly force is necessary. This obligation is therefore more likely to be framed, as it was in McCann, as an issue over the duty of command, control and training, so that agents of the state are able to judge when to apply use of deadly force and are restrained from applying it when it is not required.
Answer
refrain from unlawful killing


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 states themselves to investigate and remedy human rights breaches. If the state carries out a proper investigation, then there will be no need to invoke the ECHR, art 2 in this respect. The second is the more obvious and fundamental duty to <span>refrain from unlawful killing. The question of exactly what constitutes an unlawful killing is often complicated by situations in which the agents of the state believe (or at least claim they believe) that the use o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370165480716

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
McCann lays down two obligations which are inherent in the state's duty to secure enjoyment of article 2 rights. The first is to investigate all situations in which the state directly takes life. The rationale for this lies in the fact that it is primarily the responsibility of the states themselves to investigate and remedy human rights breaches. If the state carries out a proper investigation, then there will be no need to invoke the ECHR, art 2 in this respect. The second is the more obvious and fundamental duty to refrain from unlawful killing. The question of exactly what constitutes an unlawful killing is often complicated by situations in which the agents of the state believe (or at least claim they believe) that the use of deadly force is necessary. This obligation is therefore more likely to be framed, as it was in McCann, as [...], so that agents of the state are able to judge when to apply use of deadly force and are restrained from applying it when it is not required.
Answer
an issue over the duty of command, control and training


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
ful killing is often complicated by situations in which the agents of the state believe (or at least claim they believe) that the use of deadly force is necessary. This obligation is therefore more likely to be framed, as it was in McCann, as <span>an issue over the duty of command, control and training, so that agents of the state are able to judge when to apply use of deadly force and are restrained from applying it when it is not required.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370167053580

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The procedural, investigation element of the ECHR, art 2 extendeds extra-territorially
Answer
Al-Skeini v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 55721/07


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 ECtHR in Al-Skeini v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 55721/07 found that the procedural, investigation element of the ECHR, art 2 extended extra-territorially so that the UK was required to investigate the deaths of six Iraqi civilians killed in 20

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370169412876

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2
Answer
Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from committing suicide when being released from a psychiatric hospital on home leave. In reaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 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
The degree to which doctors and NHS Trusts might be responsible under the Human Rights Act 1998 for negligent treatment, leading to the death of a patient, was more recently considered in the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from com

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370171772172

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from committing suicide when being released from a psychiatric hospital on home leave. In reaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 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
The degree to which doctors and NHS Trusts might be responsible under the Human Rights Act 1998 for negligent treatment, leading to the death of a patient, was more recently considered in the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from com

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370174131468

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The degree to which doctors and NHS Trusts might be responsible under the Human Rights Act 1998 for negligent treatment, leading to the death of a patient, was more recently considered in the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from committing suicide when being released from a psychiatric hospital on home leave. In reaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that [...], who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient


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
eaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that <span>the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370175704332

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The degree to which doctors and NHS Trusts might be responsible under the Human Rights Act 1998 for negligent treatment, leading to the death of a patient, was more recently considered in the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from committing suicide when being released from a psychiatric hospital on home leave. In reaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when [...]. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
facing a real and immediate risk of suicide


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
al Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when <span>facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370177277196

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The degree to which doctors and NHS Trusts might be responsible under the Human Rights Act 1998 for negligent treatment, leading to the death of a patient, was more recently considered in the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from committing suicide when being released from a psychiatric hospital on home leave. In reaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have [...] as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital


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
urned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have <span>detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in brea

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370178850060

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The degree to which doctors and NHS Trusts might be responsible under the Human Rights Act 1998 for negligent treatment, leading to the death of a patient, was more recently considered in the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from committing suicide when being released from a psychiatric hospital on home leave. In reaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as [...]. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2.
Answer
there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home


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
ver the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as <span>there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370180422924

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The degree to which doctors and NHS Trusts might be responsible under the Human Rights Act 1998 for negligent treatment, leading to the death of a patient, was more recently considered in the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from committing suicide when being released from a psychiatric hospital on home leave. In reaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore [...].
Answer
failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 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
f suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore <span>failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370182782220

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Snatch Land Rover claims
Answer
Smith, Ellis and Allbutt v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41


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
tably different context, the extent of the article 2 positive obligation was one of the key issues addressed by the Supreme Court in Smith, Ellis and Allbutt v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41. A majority of the Supreme Court held that the '<span>Snatch Land Rover claims' should not be struck out on the basis that they fell outside the scope of this obligation (and so the claimants were allowed to proceed to trial). Significantly, the dissenting justice

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370185141516

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In a notably different context, the extent of the article 2 positive obligation was one of the key issues addressed by the Supreme Court in Smith, Ellis and Allbutt v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41. A majority of the Supreme Court held that the 'Snatch Land Rover claims' should not be struck out on the basis that they fell outside the scope of this obligation (and so the claimants were allowed to proceed to trial). Significantly, the dissenting justices sounded a cautionary note about the possible extension of such an obligation into an area relating to procurement of frontline military equipment and operational military decisions, perceiving these politically-tinged issues as [...]. Lord Hope, who gave the leading majority judgment, concluded that a large degree of discretion should be accorded to the Ministry of Defence and that the claimants' prospects at trial were 'far from clear'.
Answer
essentially non-justiciable in nature


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
nting justices sounded a cautionary note about the possible extension of such an obligation into an area relating to procurement of frontline military equipment and operational military decisions, perceiving these politically-tinged issues as <span>essentially non-justiciable in nature. Lord Hope, who gave the leading majority judgment, concluded that a large degree of discretion should be accorded to the Ministry of Defence and that the claimants' prospects at trial

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370186714380

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 3 of the ECHR is a/an [absolute / qualified] right in that it permits no derogation and is expressed unequivocally.
Answer
absolute


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
Article 3 of the ECHR is an absolute right in that it permits no derogation and is expressed unequivocally.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370189073676

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Article 3 of the ECHR is an absolute right in that [...].
Answer
it permits no derogation and is expressed unequivocally


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
Article 3 of the ECHR is an absolute right in that it permits no derogation and is expressed unequivocally.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370191695116

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The [...] imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute.
Answer
positive duty


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 positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370193267980

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, [...].
Answer
generally not absolute


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 positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370194840844

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute. In the case of [case] the Court of Appeal held that the ECHR, art 3 imposes a positive duty on public authorities to take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
Answer
R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364


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 positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute. In the case of R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364 the Court of Appeal held that the ECHR, art 3 imposes a positive duty on public authorities to take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370197200140

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute. In the case of R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364 the Court of Appeal held that the ECHR, art 3 [...] to take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
Answer
imposes a positive duty on public authorities


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 positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute. In the case of R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364 the Court of Appeal held that the ECHR, art 3 imposes a positive duty on public authorities to take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370198773004

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute. In the case of R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364 the Court of Appeal held that the ECHR, art 3 imposes a positive duty on public authorities to [...].
Answer
take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment


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
3 is, however, generally not absolute. In the case of R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364 the Court of Appeal held that the ECHR, art 3 imposes a positive duty on public authorities to <span>take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370200345868

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
the Court of Appeal in [case] did hold that 'a claimant may … be able to establish an Article 3 claim if he can show that the authorities there know or ought to know of particular circumstances likely to expose him to risk of Article 3 ill-treatment'.” The approach that has begun to emerge reflects that which has been taken in relation to the ECHR, art 2, therefore.
Answer
R (on the application of Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 WLR 1207


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 Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 WLR 1207 did hold that 'a claimant may … be able to establish an Article 3 claim if he can show that the authorities there know or ought to know of particular circumstances likely to expose him t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370202705164

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 WLR 1207 did hold that 'a claimant may … be able to establish an Article 3 claim if [...]'.” The approach that has begun to emerge reflects that which has been taken in relation to the ECHR, art 2, therefore.
Answer
he can show that the authorities there know or ought to know of particular circumstances likely to expose him to risk of Article 3 ill-treatment


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 Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 WLR 1207 did hold that 'a claimant may … be able to establish an Article 3 claim if he can show that the authorities there know or ought to know of particular circumstances likely to expose him to risk of Article 3 ill-treatment'.” The approach that has begun to emerge reflects that which has been taken in relation to the ECHR, art 2, therefore.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370205326604

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
‘Torture’, on the other hand, can be seen to be [...].
Answer
an aggravated, deliberate and cruel form of treatment or punishment


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
‘Torture’, on the other hand, can be seen to be an aggravated, deliberate and cruel form of treatment or punishment.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370207948044

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The approach taken in [case] confirms this basic distinction between 'torture' and 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The ECtHR held that: 'It was the intention that the Convention with its distinction between torture and inhuman treatment should by the first of these terms attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering.'
Answer
Ireland v UK (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25


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 approach taken in Ireland v UK (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25 confirms this basic distinction between 'torture' and 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The ECtHR held that: 'It was the intention that the Convention with its distinction

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370210307340

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The approach taken in Ireland v UK (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25 confirms this basic distinction between 'torture' and 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The ECtHR held that: 'It was the intention that the Convention with its distinction between torture and inhuman treatment should by the first of these terms attach a special stigma to [...].'
Answer
deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering


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
rture' and 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The ECtHR held that: 'It was the intention that the Convention with its distinction between torture and inhuman treatment should by the first of these terms attach a special stigma to <span>deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering.'<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370212928780

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Ireland v UK
Answer
The case involved terrorist suspects in the custody of British security forces in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s. While detained, they were subjected to a systematic programme of treatment designed to make them reveal information and to make them more compliant in their future dealings with the security forces (i.e., to become informers). The programme was clearly planned and authorised, and went by the name of 'the Five Techniques'. These included such practices as wall-standing (being made to stand inches from a wall for anything up to 20 hours with limbs outstretched), sleep deprivation, subjection to intense noise, hooding, and withholding of food. The case was first considered by the Council of Europe's Commission on Human Rights (a non- determinative, non-judicial body that is now defunct), which concluded that these combined techniques did amount to 'torture'. The UK government accepted these findings and promptly denounced the earlier practices. However, somewhat surprisingly, the ECtHR then concluded that this was 'merely' a case of inhuman or degrading treatment, indicating perhaps a reluctance to classify psychological techniques as torture. Some of the minority tried to address this by arguing that any activity that aims at breaking an individual's will should be classified as torture, whether it involves actual pain or mere discomfort. This was not approved by the majority, however.


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 case of Ireland v UK involved terrorist suspects in the custody of British security forces in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s. While detained, they were subjected to a systematic programme of treatme

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370217647372

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The case involved terrorist suspects in the custody of British security forces in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s. While detained, they were subjected to a systematic programme of treatment designed to make them reveal information and to make them more compliant in their future dealings with the security forces (i.e., to become informers). The programme was clearly planned and authorised, and went by the name of 'the Five Techniques'. These included such practices as wall-standing (being made to stand inches from a wall for anything up to 20 hours with limbs outstretched), sleep deprivation, subjection to intense noise, hooding, and withholding of food. The case was first considered by the Council of Europe's Commission on Human Rights (a non- determinative, non-judicial body that is now defunct), which concluded that these combined techniques did amount to 'torture'. The UK government accepted these findings and promptly denounced the earlier practices. However, somewhat surprisingly, the ECtHR then concluded that this was 'merely' a case of inhuman or degrading treatment, indicating perhaps a reluctance to classify psychological techniques as torture. Some of the minority tried to address this by arguing that any activity that aims at breaking an individual's will should be classified as torture, whether it involves actual pain or mere discomfort. This was not approved by the majority, however.
Answer
Ireland v UK


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 case of Ireland v UK involved terrorist suspects in the custody of British security forces in Northern Ireland during the early 1970s. While detained, they were subjected to a systematic programme of treatme

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370220006668

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The wording of the ECHR, art 3 tells us nothing specific about what amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment and/or torture. While it is difficult to define all of the circumstances that will engage the ECHR, art 3, it is clear that the standard of what constitutes the former must be set at a high level. Only serious ill-treatment or neglect falls within its scope, so this must attain a minimum level of severity. Assessment of that minimum is relative as it depends on all the circumstances of the case. Relevant factors are [...]
Answer
the nature and context of the treatment, the manner of its execution, its duration, and its physical and mental effects, including, where relevant, its impact on the health of the person involved, both positive and negative


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
et at a high level. Only serious ill-treatment or neglect falls within its scope, so this must attain a minimum level of severity. Assessment of that minimum is relative as it depends on all the circumstances of the case. Relevant factors are <span>the nature and context of the treatment, the manner of its execution, its duration, and its physical and mental effects, including, where relevant, its impact on the health of the person involved, both positive and negative<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370221579532

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Askoy v Turkey (1997) 2 EHRR 25
Answer
The applicant was stripped naked, strung up with his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten at 2½ hour intervals for four days. The court considered that this form of deliberately inflicted treatment was of such a cruel nature that it amounted to torture.


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 comparative case was Askoy v Turkey (1997) 2 EHRR 25 in which the applicant was stripped naked, strung up with his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370223414540

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
the applicant was stripped naked, strung up with his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten at 2½ hour intervals for four days. The court considered that this form of deliberately inflicted treatment was of such a cruel nature that it amounted to torture.
Answer
Askoy v Turkey (1997) 2 EHRR 25


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 comparative case was Askoy v Turkey (1997) 2 EHRR 25 in which the applicant was stripped naked, strung up with his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370226298124

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A comparative case was Askoy v Turkey (1997) 2 EHRR 25 in which the applicant was stripped naked, strung up with his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten at 2½ hour intervals for four days. The court considered that this form of deliberately inflicted treatment was [...].
Answer
of such a cruel nature that it amounted to torture


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
th his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten at 2½ hour intervals for four days. The court considered that this form of deliberately inflicted treatment was <span>of such a cruel nature that it amounted to torture.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370227870988

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Aydin v Turkey, (1997) 25 EHRR
Answer
The complainant was raped, beaten, stripped and sprayed with high pressure water while in custody. The ECtHR found that this amounted to torture. Even without the rape there was a possibility that it would still have amounted to torture.


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 Aydin v Turkey, (1997) 25 EHRR the complainant was raped, beaten, stripped and sprayed with high pressure water while in custody. The ECtHR found that this amounted to torture. Even without the rape there was a possib

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370230230284

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The complainant was raped, beaten, stripped and sprayed with high pressure water while in custody. The ECtHR found that this amounted to torture. Even without the rape there was a possibility that it would still have amounted to torture.
Answer
Aydin v Turkey, (1997) 25 EHRR


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 Aydin v Turkey, (1997) 25 EHRR the complainant was raped, beaten, stripped and sprayed with high pressure water while in custody. The ECtHR found that this amounted to torture. Even without the rape there was a possib

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370232589580

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Similarly, in Aydin v Turkey, (1997) 25 EHRR the complainant was raped, beaten, stripped and sprayed with high pressure water while in custody. The ECtHR found that [...]. Even without the rape there was a possibility that it would still have amounted to torture.
Answer
this amounted to torture


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 Aydin v Turkey, (1997) 25 EHRR the complainant was raped, beaten, stripped and sprayed with high pressure water while in custody. The ECtHR found that this amounted to torture. Even without the rape there was a possibility that it would still have amounted to torture.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370234162444

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16
Answer
The applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which exacerbated his facial eczema. The court held that the conditions of detention endured by the applicant and their effect on his physical health amounted to degrading treatment and were a violation of the ECHR, art 3. While it was impractical to move him and all the other prisoners enduring similar conditions, the applicant was entitled to have his case for removal considered on an individual basis.


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
Prison conditions have proved one area where attempts to raise an article 3 violation (at the lower end of the spectrum) have been made. In Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16, the applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which exacerbated his facial eczema. Th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370236521740

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which exacerbated his facial eczema. The court held that the conditions of detention endured by the applicant and their effect on his physical health amounted to degrading treatment and were a violation of the ECHR, art 3. While it was impractical to move him and all the other prisoners enduring similar conditions, the applicant was entitled to have his case for removal considered on an individual basis.
Answer
Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16


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
Prison conditions have proved one area where attempts to raise an article 3 violation (at the lower end of the spectrum) have been made. In Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16, the applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which exacerbated his facial eczema. Th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370238881036

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Prison conditions have proved one area where attempts to raise an article 3 violation (at the lower end of the spectrum) have been made. In Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16, the applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which [...]. The court held that the conditions of detention endured by the applicant and their effect on his physical health amounted to degrading treatment and were a violation of the ECHR, art 3. While it was impractical to move him and all the other prisoners enduring similar conditions, the applicant was entitled to have his case for removal considered on an individual basis.
Answer
exacerbated his facial eczema


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
wer end of the spectrum) have been made. In Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16, the applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which <span>exacerbated his facial eczema. The court held that the conditions of detention endured by the applicant and their effect on his physical health amounted to degrading treatment and were a violation of the ECHR, art 3

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370240453900

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Prison conditions have proved one area where attempts to raise an article 3 violation (at the lower end of the spectrum) have been made. In Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16, the applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which exacerbated his facial eczema. The court held that [...]. While it was impractical to move him and all the other prisoners enduring similar conditions, the applicant was entitled to have his case for removal considered on an individual basis.
Answer
the conditions of detention endured by the applicant and their effect on his physical health amounted to degrading treatment and were a violation of the ECHR, art 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
v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16, the applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which exacerbated his facial eczema. The court held that <span>the conditions of detention endured by the applicant and their effect on his physical health amounted to degrading treatment and were a violation of the ECHR, art 3. While it was impractical to move him and all the other prisoners enduring similar conditions, the applicant was entitled to have his case for removal considered on an individual basis.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370242026764

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439
Answer
S, a German national, was in the custody of the UK and was wanted for extradition to the USA on a (capital) murder charge. The prosecuting authorities in the state where he was wanted, Virginia, made it clear they would seek the death penalty. S sought to challenge his removal to that state's jurisdiction on the grounds that it would be unlawful for a Convention state to remove an individual to a jurisdiction where there was a 'real risk' he would suffer treatment contrary to the Convention. The state could not, as it were, contract out of the violation by sending the individual abroad to face treatment that was unlawful at home. At that time, capital punishment was not yet outlawed under the Convention – it remained one of the recognised exceptions in the ECHR, art 2. S could not argue that removal to face possible death in Virginia was thus directly contrary to the Convention. Instead, he successfully argued that the manner in which the process of capital punishment was carried out in the USA would violate the ECHR, art 3, as constituting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This was not specifically the means of inflicting death, but rather the drawn out nature of the legal proceedings, in which it was not uncommon for inmates to be stuck on death row for many years. This was seen to produce a debilitating (and, as the court felt, inhuman) psychological condition: the so-called 'death row phenomenon'.


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 the case of Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439, the context was markedly different and brought into play the Convention concept of the positive obligation. Soering, a German national, was in the custody of the UK and was wanted for

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370244386060

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
S, a German national, was in the custody of the UK and was wanted for extradition to the USA on a (capital) murder charge. The prosecuting authorities in the state where he was wanted, Virginia, made it clear they would seek the death penalty. S sought to challenge his removal to that state's jurisdiction on the grounds that it would be unlawful for a Convention state to remove an individual to a jurisdiction where there was a 'real risk' he would suffer treatment contrary to the Convention. The state could not, as it were, contract out of the violation by sending the individual abroad to face treatment that was unlawful at home. At that time, capital punishment was not yet outlawed under the Convention – it remained one of the recognised exceptions in the ECHR, art 2. S could not argue that removal to face possible death in Virginia was thus directly contrary to the Convention. Instead, he successfully argued that the manner in which the process of capital punishment was carried out in the USA would violate the ECHR, art 3, as constituting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This was not specifically the means of inflicting death, but rather the drawn out nature of the legal proceedings, in which it was not uncommon for inmates to be stuck on death row for many years. This was seen to produce a debilitating (and, as the court felt, inhuman) psychological condition: the so-called 'death row phenomenon'.
Answer
Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439


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 the case of Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439, the context was markedly different and brought into play the Convention concept of the positive obligation. Soering, a German national, was in the custody of the UK and was wanted for

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370246745356

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413
Answer
C was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, C successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. C thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.


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
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 represents an extension of the principle of extra-territorial effect established in Soering. Chahal was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370249104652

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
C was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, C successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. C thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.
Answer
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413


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
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 represents an extension of the principle of extra-territorial effect established in Soering. Chahal was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of th

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370251463948

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 represents an extension of the principle of extra-territorial effect established in Soering. Chahal was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, Chahal successfully argued that, [...], and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. Chahal thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.
Answer
while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police


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
of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, Chahal successfully argued that, <span>while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. Chahal thus extended the principle i

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370253036812

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 represents an extension of the principle of extra-territorial effect established in Soering. Chahal was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, Chahal successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that [...]. Chahal thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.
Answer
their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him


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
be welcomed back and treated properly. However, Chahal successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that <span>their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. Chahal thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370254609676

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.
Answer
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413


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
ould be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. Chahal thus <span>extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370256968972

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 represents an extension of the principle of extra-territorial effect established in Soering. Chahal was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, Chahal successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. Chahal thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where [...].
Answer
non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment


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
lements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. Chahal thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where <span>non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370258541836

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case], the Supreme Court found that the duty not to deport foreign nationals did not, as the Home Secretary sought to argue, just apply to countries where there was a real, ’systemic' risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. Instead, Convention law made it clear that each case should be considered on its own merits to decide if a real risk of this nature attached to the particular individual. This applied to the four applicants in this case who were resisting deportation to Italy, the state responsible for processing their asylum applications.
Answer
R (on application of EM (Eritrea) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12


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 (on application of EM (Eritrea) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court found that the duty not to deport foreign nationals did not, as the Home Secretary sought to argue, just apply to countries where there was a real, ’systemic' risk of

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370260901132

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R (on application of EM (Eritrea) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court found that [...]. Instead, Convention law made it clear that each case should be considered on its own merits to decide if a real risk of this nature attached to the particular individual. This applied to the four applicants in this case who were resisting deportation to Italy, the state responsible for processing their asylum applications.
Answer
the duty not to deport foreign nationals did not, as the Home Secretary sought to argue, just apply to countries where there was a real, ’systemic' risk of inhuman and degrading treatment


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 (on application of EM (Eritrea) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court found that the duty not to deport foreign nationals did not, as the Home Secretary sought to argue, just apply to countries where there was a real, ’systemic' risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. Instead, Convention law made it clear that each case should be considered on its own merits to decide if a real risk of this nature attached to the particular individual. This applied

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370262473996

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In R (on application of EM (Eritrea) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court found that the duty not to deport foreign nationals did not, as the Home Secretary sought to argue, just apply to countries where there was a real, ’systemic' risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. Instead, Convention law made it clear that [...]. This applied to the four applicants in this case who were resisting deportation to Italy, the state responsible for processing their asylum applications.
Answer
each case should be considered on its own merits to decide if a real risk of this nature attached to the particular individual


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
found that the duty not to deport foreign nationals did not, as the Home Secretary sought to argue, just apply to countries where there was a real, ’systemic' risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. Instead, Convention law made it clear that <span>each case should be considered on its own merits to decide if a real risk of this nature attached to the particular individual. This applied to the four applicants in this case who were resisting deportation to Italy, the state responsible for processing their asylum applications.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370264046860

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010)
Answer
concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.


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
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010), concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British sold

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370266406156

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.
Answer
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010)


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
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010), concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British sold

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370268765452

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010), concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants [...], given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.
Answer
remained at real risk of execution


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
oncerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants <span>remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applican

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370270338316

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010), concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, [...], which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.
Answer
the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution


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
he ECtHR noted that the applicants remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, <span>the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.<span><body></

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370271911180

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010), concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which [...], according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.
Answer
amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment


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
ecution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which <span>amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370273484044

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010), concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. [outcome].
Answer
A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found


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 a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. <span>A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370275843340

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645
Answer
The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3 and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of rehabilitation has been achieved) that continued detention can no longer be justified. It found that UK law concerning the Secretary of State's power to release a whole life prisoner was unclear and that there was no appropriate review mechanism for whole life orders. It also found that the circumstances for compassionate release were 'highly restrictive'.


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 July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatm

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370278202636

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3 and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of rehabilitation has been achieved) that continued detention can no longer be justified. It found that UK law concerning the Secretary of State's power to release a whole life prisoner was unclear and that there was no appropriate review mechanism for whole life orders. It also found that the circumstances for compassionate release were 'highly restrictive'.
Answer
Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645


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 July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatm

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370280561932

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that [...] and therefore a violation of their rights under the ECHR, art 3. The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3 and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of rehabilitation has been achieved) that continued detention can no longer be justified. It found that UK law concerning the Secretary of State's power to release a whole life prisoner was unclear and that there was no appropriate review mechanism for whole life orders. It also found that the circumstances for compassionate release were 'highly restrictive'.
Answer
the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment


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
l>In July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of their rights under the ECHR, art 3. The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compas

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370282134796

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of their rights under the ECHR, art 3. The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that [...] and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of rehabilitation has been achieved) that continued detention can no longer be justified. It found that UK law concerning the Secretary of State's power to release a whole life prisoner was unclear and that there was no appropriate review mechanism for whole life orders. It also found that the circumstances for compassionate release were 'highly restrictive'.
Answer
being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 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 life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that <span>being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3 and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows do

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370283707660

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In July 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in the case of Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645 found for three applicants, who were all life sentence prisoners, in relation to their claims that the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore a violation of their rights under the ECHR, art 3. The applicants were all subject to 'whole life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3 and held that [...]– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of rehabilitation has been achieved) that continued detention can no longer be justified. It found that UK law concerning the Secretary of State's power to release a whole life prisoner was unclear and that there was no appropriate review mechanism for whole life orders. It also found that the circumstances for compassionate release were 'highly restrictive'.
Answer
for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence


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
te grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3 and held that <span>for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in life prisoners are so significant (e.g. that such a degree of

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370285280524

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
It is very interesting to note, however, that as a result of the [case], the Court of Appeal has subsequently confirmed its view that the whole-life tariff regime, provided for in UK law, is compatible with the ECHR, art 3. This hinges on a clear difference of opinion between the courts with regard to the clarity of the relevant provision enabling release in exceptional circumstances. This view was further confirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v McLoughlin & Newell [2014] EWCA Crim 188, providing a further example of UK courts departing from Strasbourg jurisprudence when this is considered necessary.
Answer
Attorney-General's Reference (No 69 of 2013) [2014] EWCA Crim 188


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
It is very interesting to note, however, that as a result of the Attorney-General's Reference (No 69 of 2013) [2014] EWCA Crim 188, the Court of Appeal has subsequently confirmed its view that the whole-life tariff regime, provided for in UK law, is compatible with the ECHR, art 3. This hinges on a clear difference

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370287639820

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
It is very interesting to note, however, that as a result of the Attorney-General's Reference (No 69 of 2013) [2014] EWCA Crim 188, the Court of Appeal has subsequently confirmed its view that the whole-life tariff regime, provided for in UK law, is compatible with the ECHR, art 3. This hinges on a clear difference of opinion between the courts with regard to the clarity of the relevant provision enabling release in exceptional circumstances. This view was further confirmed by the Court of Appeal in [case], providing a further example of UK courts departing from Strasbourg jurisprudence when this is considered necessary.
Answer
R v McLoughlin & Newell [2014] EWCA Crim 188


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
ith the ECHR, art 3. This hinges on a clear difference of opinion between the courts with regard to the clarity of the relevant provision enabling release in exceptional circumstances. This view was further confirmed by the Court of Appeal in <span>R v McLoughlin & Newell [2014] EWCA Crim 188, providing a further example of UK courts departing from Strasbourg jurisprudence when this is considered necessary.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370289999116

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A detention may be lawful where [...] or, for instance, detained in hospital according to procedures laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983. Legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), allows for arrest and detention of persons suspected of certain crimes.
Answer
someone is imprisoned pursuant to the lawful sentence of a properly constituted court


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 detention may be lawful where someone is imprisoned pursuant to the lawful sentence of a properly constituted court or, for instance, detained in hospital according to procedures laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983. Legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), allows

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370291571980

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
A detention may be lawful where someone is imprisoned pursuant to the lawful sentence of a properly constituted court or, for instance, detained in hospital according to procedures laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983. Legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), allows for [...].
Answer
arrest and detention of persons suspected of certain crimes


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 lawful sentence of a properly constituted court or, for instance, detained in hospital according to procedures laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983. Legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), allows for <span>arrest and detention of persons suspected of certain crimes.<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs







Flashcard 1370294193420

Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
It is important to note that ECHR, art 5 is not engaged unless [...].
Answer
a person has been deprived of their liberty