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