BuboFlash - helps with learning

Edited, memorised or added to reading queue

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

Answer

paragraph 8

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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]

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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]

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 29,).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1361765862668

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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,).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1361767435532

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Terrorism Act 2000

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

Answer

Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8, paragraph 29

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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]

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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'.<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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so'.<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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 fleeing after having done so'.<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'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 the inquests held into killings by security forces in Northern Ireland were flawed.<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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 they knew, or ought to have known, that there was a real and immediate risk to life but failed to take appropriate measures.<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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 failed to take appropriate measures.<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.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

Answer

R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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: 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.<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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 seen to represent a violation of the ECHR, art 2.<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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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.<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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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

Answer

Condron v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 1

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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.<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.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370129304844

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Benham v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 293

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 the ECtHR held that it was in the interests of justice to provide him with legal representation.<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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370139528460

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370141101324

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

ECHR, art 6 is only engaged in civil matters when [...].

Answer

there is a determination of a civil right or obligation

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370142674188

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Under the PACE 1984, ss [...], detention beyond 36 hours may be authorised, but only by a magistrates' court granting a warrant

Answer

43(1) and 44(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370144247052

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

36 hours

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370145819916

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Under the PACE 1984, ss 43(1) and 44(1), detention beyond 36 hours may be authorised, but only by [...]

Answer

a magistrates' court granting a warrant

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370147392780

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97

Answer

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370149752076

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370153684236

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

honestly believed, in the light of the information that they had been given, that it was necessary to shoot the suspects in order to prevent them from causing serious loss of life

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370155257100

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

perceived as necessary in order to safeguard innocent lives

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370156829964

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

a breach by the UK

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370158402828

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

the lack of care exercised in the control and organisation of the overall security operation

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370159975692

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

McCann

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370162334988

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

investigate all situations in which the state directly takes life

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370163907852

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

refrain from unlawful killing

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370165480716

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

an issue over the duty of command, control and training

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370167053580

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The procedural, investigation element of the ECHR, art 2 extendeds extra-territorially

Answer

Al-Skeini v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 55721/07

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370169412876

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2

Answer

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from committing suicide when being released from a psychiatric hospital on home leave. In reaching this conclusion, reliance was placed on the fact that the patient was not formally detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at the time of her suicide. On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned this finding. The Supreme Court held that the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient, who had been admitted to the hospital when facing a real and immediate risk of suicide. It found that the Trust should have detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital as there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home. The Trust had therefore failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The degree to which doctors and NHS Trusts might be responsible under the Human Rights Act 1998 for negligent treatment, leading to the death of a patient, was more recently considered in the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had held that the NHS trust was not under a positive obligation under the ECHR, art 2 to take reasonable steps to prevent a patient from com

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370171772172

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370174131468

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

the NHS trust had assumed responsibility and control over the patient

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370175704332

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

facing a real and immediate risk of suicide

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370177277196

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

detained the patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 when she was insisting to leave the hospital

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370178850060

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

there was a real risk that she would take her life when allowed home

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370180422924

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide in breach of the ECHR, art 2

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370182782220

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Snatch Land Rover claims

Answer

Smith, Ellis and Allbutt v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370185141516

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

essentially non-justiciable in nature

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370186714380

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 3 of the ECHR is a/an [absolute / qualified] right in that it permits no derogation and is expressed unequivocally.

Answer

absolute

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370189073676

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 3 of the ECHR is an absolute right in that [...].

Answer

it permits no derogation and is expressed unequivocally

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370191695116

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The [...] imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute.

Answer

positive duty

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370193267980

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, [...].

Answer

generally not absolute

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370194840844

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute. In the case of [case] the Court of Appeal held that the ECHR, art 3 imposes a positive duty on public authorities to take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

Answer

R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370197200140

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

imposes a positive duty on public authorities

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370198773004

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The positive duty imposed by the ECHR, art 3 is, however, generally not absolute. In the case of R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2003] EWCA Civ 364 the Court of Appeal held that the ECHR, art 3 imposes a positive duty on public authorities to [...].

Answer

take action to prevent individuals being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370200345868

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the Court of Appeal in [case] did hold that 'a claimant may … be able to establish an Article 3 claim if he can show that the authorities there know or ought to know of particular circumstances likely to expose him to risk of Article 3 ill-treatment'.” The approach that has begun to emerge reflects that which has been taken in relation to the ECHR, art 2, therefore.

Answer

R (on the application of Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 WLR 1207

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370202705164

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 WLR 1207 did hold that 'a claimant may … be able to establish an Article 3 claim if [...]'.” The approach that has begun to emerge reflects that which has been taken in relation to the ECHR, art 2, therefore.

Answer

he can show that the authorities there know or ought to know of particular circumstances likely to expose him to risk of Article 3 ill-treatment

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370205326604

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

‘Torture’, on the other hand, can be seen to be [...].

Answer

an aggravated, deliberate and cruel form of treatment or punishment

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370207948044

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The approach taken in [case] confirms this basic distinction between 'torture' and 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The ECtHR held that: 'It was the intention that the Convention with its distinction between torture and inhuman treatment should by the first of these terms attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering.'

Answer

Ireland v UK (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370210307340

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The approach taken in Ireland v UK (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25 confirms this basic distinction between 'torture' and 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The ECtHR held that: 'It was the intention that the Convention with its distinction between torture and inhuman treatment should by the first of these terms attach a special stigma to [...].'

Answer

deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370212928780

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Ireland v UK

Answer

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370217647372

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Ireland v UK

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370220006668

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The wording of the ECHR, art 3 tells us nothing specific about what amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment and/or torture. While it is difficult to define all of the circumstances that will engage the ECHR, art 3, it is clear that the standard of what constitutes the former must be set at a high level. Only serious ill-treatment or neglect falls within its scope, so this must attain a minimum level of severity. Assessment of that minimum is relative as it depends on all the circumstances of the case. Relevant factors are [...]

Answer

the nature and context of the treatment, the manner of its execution, its duration, and its physical and mental effects, including, where relevant, its impact on the health of the person involved, both positive and negative

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370221579532

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Askoy v Turkey (1997) 2 EHRR 25

Answer

The applicant was stripped naked, strung up with his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten at 2½ hour intervals for four days. The court considered that this form of deliberately inflicted treatment was of such a cruel nature that it amounted to torture.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370223414540

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the applicant was stripped naked, strung up with his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten at 2½ hour intervals for four days. The court considered that this form of deliberately inflicted treatment was of such a cruel nature that it amounted to torture.

Answer

Askoy v Turkey (1997) 2 EHRR 25

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370226298124

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A comparative case was Askoy v Turkey (1997) 2 EHRR 25 in which the applicant was stripped naked, strung up with his arms tied together behind his back and had electrodes attached to his genitals. Water was thrown over him and he was beaten at 2½ hour intervals for four days. The court considered that this form of deliberately inflicted treatment was [...].

Answer

of such a cruel nature that it amounted to torture

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370227870988

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Aydin v Turkey, (1997) 25 EHRR

Answer

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370230230284

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Aydin v Turkey, (1997) 25 EHRR

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370232589580

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

this amounted to torture

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370234162444

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16

Answer

The applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which exacerbated his facial eczema. The court held that the conditions of detention endured by the applicant and their effect on his physical health amounted to degrading treatment and were a violation of the ECHR, art 3. While it was impractical to move him and all the other prisoners enduring similar conditions, the applicant was entitled to have his case for removal considered on an individual basis.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370236521740

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370238881036

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

exacerbated his facial eczema

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370240453900

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Prison conditions have proved one area where attempts to raise an article 3 violation (at the lower end of the spectrum) have been made. In Napier v The Scottish Ministers [2005] CSIH 16, the applicant was detained in HM Prison, Barlinnie in Glasgow. He complained about the lack of toilet facilities and the small size of the cell, which exacerbated his facial eczema. The court held that [...]. While it was impractical to move him and all the other prisoners enduring similar conditions, the applicant was entitled to have his case for removal considered on an individual basis.

Answer

the conditions of detention endured by the applicant and their effect on his physical health amounted to degrading treatment and were a violation of the ECHR, art 3

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370242026764

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439

Answer

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370244386060

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370246745356

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413

Answer

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370249104652

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370251463948

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 represents an extension of the principle of extra-territorial effect established in Soering. Chahal was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, Chahal successfully argued that, [...], and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. Chahal thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.

Answer

while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370253036812

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 represents an extension of the principle of extra-territorial effect established in Soering. Chahal was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, Chahal successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that [...]. Chahal thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.

Answer

their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370254609676

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.

Answer

Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370256968972

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370258541836

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

R (on application of EM (Eritrea) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370260901132

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (on application of EM (Eritrea) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court found that [...]. Instead, Convention law made it clear that each case should be considered on its own merits to decide if a real risk of this nature attached to the particular individual. This applied to the four applicants in this case who were resisting deportation to Italy, the state responsible for processing their asylum applications.

Answer

the duty not to deport foreign nationals did not, as the Home Secretary sought to argue, just apply to countries where there was a real, ’systemic' risk of inhuman and degrading treatment

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370262473996

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (on application of EM (Eritrea) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court found that the duty not to deport foreign nationals did not, as the Home Secretary sought to argue, just apply to countries where there was a real, ’systemic' risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. Instead, Convention law made it clear that [...]. This applied to the four applicants in this case who were resisting deportation to Italy, the state responsible for processing their asylum applications.

Answer

each case should be considered on its own merits to decide if a real risk of this nature attached to the particular individual

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370264046860

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010)

Answer

concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370266406156

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Concerned the transfer by the British authorities in Basra, Iraq of two Iraqi nationals (the applicants) to the Iraq High Tribunal ('IHT') in relation to the deaths of two British soldiers. As a consequence, the ECtHR noted that the applicants remained at real risk of execution, given that the death penalty was a sentence open to the IHT in the circumstances of their cases. As a result of the choices made by the British authorities since May 2006, the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution, which amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment, according to the court. A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found.

Answer

Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom (Application No 61498/08) (2 March 2010)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370268765452

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

remained at real risk of execution

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370270338316

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

the applicants had been subjected to fear of execution

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370271911180

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

amounted to psychological suffering sufficient to constitute inhuman treatment

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370273484044

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

A violation of the ECHR, art 3 was therefore found

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370275843340

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645

Answer

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

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370278202636

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Vinter and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 645

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370280561932

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

the type of sentences they had been subject to amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370282134796

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e life orders', meaning that they could not ever be released other than on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Secretary of State, if for instance they were terminally ill or seriously incapacitated. The Grand Chamber accepted that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of the ECHR, art 3 and held that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence– in other words there must be a clear system of review which allows do

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370283707660

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be ‘reducibility’ in the sentence

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370285280524

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

It is very interesting to note, however, that as a result of the [case], the Court of Appeal has subsequently confirmed its view that the whole-life tariff regime, provided for in UK law, is compatible with the ECHR, art 3. This hinges on a clear difference of opinion between the courts with regard to the clarity of the relevant provision enabling release in exceptional circumstances. This view was further confirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v McLoughlin & Newell [2014] EWCA Crim 188, providing a further example of UK courts departing from Strasbourg jurisprudence when this is considered necessary.

Answer

Attorney-General's Reference (No 69 of 2013) [2014] EWCA Crim 188

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370287639820

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

R v McLoughlin & Newell [2014] EWCA Crim 188

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370289999116

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A detention may be lawful where [...] or, for instance, detained in hospital according to procedures laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983. Legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), allows for arrest and detention of persons suspected of certain crimes.

Answer

someone is imprisoned pursuant to the lawful sentence of a properly constituted court

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370291571980

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

arrest and detention of persons suspected of certain crimes

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

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

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370294193420

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

It is important to note that ECHR, art 5 is not engaged unless [...].

Answer

a person has been deprived of their liberty

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
It is important to note that ECHR, art 5 is not engaged unless a person has been deprived of their liberty.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370295766284

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

It is important to note that ECHR, art 5 is not engaged unless a person has been deprived of their liberty. Strasbourg has noted that this may take numerous forms. Determining whether there has been a deprivation of liberty so as to engage the ECHR, art 5 is a question of degree or intensity of the restriction placed upon freedom of movement, and the general extent to which the state regulates control over the individual. Factors that may be considered include the [...] of the restrictive measure in question. If the overall impact of restrictive measures is not deemed sufficiently serious, no Article 5 protection will arise.

Answer

type, duration, effects, and manner of implementation

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
as to engage the ECHR, art 5 is a question of degree or intensity of the restriction placed upon freedom of movement, and the general extent to which the state regulates control over the individual. Factors that may be considered include the type, duration, effects, and manner of implementation of the restrictive measure in question. If the overall impact of restrictive measures is not deemed sufficiently serious, no Article 5 protection will arise.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370297339148

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

It is important to note that ECHR, art 5 is not engaged unless a person has been deprived of their liberty. Strasbourg has noted that this may take numerous forms. Determining whether there has been a deprivation of liberty so as to engage the ECHR, art 5 is a question of degree or intensity of the restriction placed upon freedom of movement, and the general extent to which the state regulates control over the individual. Factors that may be considered include the type, duration, effects, and manner of implementation of the restrictive measure in question. If the overall impact of restrictive measures is not deemed sufficiently serious, [...].

Answer

no Article 5 protection will arise

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ol over the individual. Factors that may be considered include the type, duration, effects, and manner of implementation of the restrictive measure in question. If the overall impact of restrictive measures is not deemed sufficiently serious, no Article 5 protection will arise.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370299960588

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

[case] is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c).

Answer

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370302319884

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art [...].

Answer

5(1)(c)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370303892748

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the '[...]' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c).

Answer

reasonable suspicion

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370305465612

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157

Answer

Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c). Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arres

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370307824908

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370310184204

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c). Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even [...], the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).

Answer

under an emergency situation

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
art 5(1)(c). Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the perso

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370311757068

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c). Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art [...] required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).

Answer

5(1)(c)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have com

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370313329932

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c). Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required [...], meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).

Answer

there to be reasonable suspicion

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370314902796

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c). Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that [...]. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).

Answer

there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
rest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370316475660

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 is the key case on the 'reasonable suspicion' requirement within the ECHR, art 5(1)(c). Under terrorist legislation made in relation to Northern Ireland in the late 1970s, a lawful arrest merely required 'suspicion' of an offence on the part of the police rather than 'reasonable suspicion'. The ECtHR held that, even under an emergency situation, the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) required there to be reasonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, [outcome].

Answer

the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
sonable suspicion, meaning that there had to be evidence of 'facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence'. Under the particular circumstances in this case, therefore, the arrests had been carried out contrary to the ECHR, art 5(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370318834956

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Continual forced detention in a psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems with post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1)

Answer

Johnson v UK (1997) 27 EHRR 269

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in Johnson v UK (1997) 27 EHRR 269, continual forced detention in a psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems with post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1). Forced psychiatric detention was highlighted as an area where the state had a particularly high duty to ensure that correct procedures were followed, because the individual would (by d

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370322242828

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

5(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
head>in Johnson v UK (1997) 27 EHRR 269, continual forced detention in a psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems with post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1)<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370323815692

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in [case], continual forced detention in a psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems with post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1)

Answer

Johnson v UK (1997) 27 EHRR 269

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370326174988

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Johnson v UK (1997) 27 EHRR 269

Answer

Continual forced detention in a psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems with post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370328534284

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Johnson v UK (1997) 27 EHRR 269, continual forced detention in a psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems with post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1). Forced psychiatric detention was highlighted as an area where the state had a [...], because the individual would (by definition) see their ability to challenge their detention become much reduced once they were labelled as requiring such detention.

Answer

particularly high duty to ensure that correct procedures were followed

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
n in a psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems with post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1). Forced psychiatric detention was highlighted as an area where the state had a particularly high duty to ensure that correct procedures were followed, because the individual would (by definition) see their ability to challenge their detention become much reduced once they were labelled as requiring such detention.</body

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370330107148

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Johnson v UK (1997) 27 EHRR 269, continual forced detention in a psychiatric facility following successful treatment, caused by problems with post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1). Forced psychiatric detention was highlighted as an area where the state had a particularly high duty to ensure that correct procedures were followed, because [...].

Answer

the individual would (by definition) see their ability to challenge their detention become much reduced once they were labelled as requiring such detention

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ith post- release facilities, was held to be unjustifiable under the ECHR, art 5(1). Forced psychiatric detention was highlighted as an area where the state had a particularly high duty to ensure that correct procedures were followed, because the individual would (by definition) see their ability to challenge their detention become much reduced once they were labelled as requiring such detention.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370331680012

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In [case], it was held not to be a breach of the ECHR, art 5(1)(e) to detain a patient suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment in circumstances where his release had been made conditional upon finding appropriate accommodation and it had taken seven months to do so.

Answer

R (on the application of W) v Doncaster MBC [2004] EWCA Civ 378

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R (on the application of W) v Doncaster MBC [2004] EWCA Civ 378, it was held not to be a breach of the ECHR, art 5(1)(e) to detain a patient suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment in circumstances where his release had been made condit

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370334039308

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (on the application of W) v Doncaster MBC [2004] EWCA Civ 378, it was held not to be a breach of the ECHR, art [...] to detain a patient suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment in circumstances where his release had been made conditional upon finding appropriate accommodation and it had taken seven months to do so.

Answer

5(1)(e)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370335612172

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (on the application of W) v Doncaster MBC [2004] EWCA Civ 378, it was held [...] to detain a patient suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment in circumstances where his release had been made conditional upon finding appropriate accommodation and it had taken seven months to do so.

Answer

not to be a breach of the ECHR, art 5(1)(e)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370338757900

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (on the application of W) v Doncaster MBC [2004] EWCA Civ 378, it was held not to be a breach of the ECHR, art 5(1)(e) to detain a patient suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment in circumstances where [...] and it had taken seven months to do so.

Answer

his release had been made conditional upon finding appropriate accommodation

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
head>In R (on the application of W) v Doncaster MBC [2004] EWCA Civ 378, it was held not to be a breach of the ECHR, art 5(1)(e) to detain a patient suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment in circumstances where his release had been made conditional upon finding appropriate accommodation and it had taken seven months to do so.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370340330764

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

seven months

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
was held not to be a breach of the ECHR, art 5(1)(e) to detain a patient suffering from a mental disorder requiring treatment in circumstances where his release had been made conditional upon finding appropriate accommodation and it had taken seven months to do so.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370341903628

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in [case], the House of Lords held that detention of asylum seekers for the purpose of enabling the authorities to decide whether to authorise entry into the UK was allowed by the ECHR, art 5(1)(f), as long as they were detained in reasonable conditions and not for excessive periods.

Answer

R (on the application of Saadi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 41

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in R (on the application of Saadi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 41, the House of Lords held that detention of asylum seekers for the purpose of enabling the authorities to decide whether to authorise entry into the UK was allowed by the ECHR, art 5(1)(

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370344262924

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in R (on the application of Saadi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 41, the House of Lords held that detention of [...] for the purpose of enabling the authorities to decide whether to authorise entry into the UK was allowed by the ECHR, art 5(1)(f), as long as they were detained in reasonable conditions and not for excessive periods.

Answer

asylum seekers

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370345835788

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in R (on the application of Saadi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 41, the House of Lords held that detention of asylum seekers for the purpose of enabling the authorities to decide whether to authorise entry into the UK was allowed by the ECHR, art [...], as long as they were detained in reasonable conditions and not for excessive periods.

Answer

5(1)(f)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
i) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 41, the House of Lords held that detention of asylum seekers for the purpose of enabling the authorities to decide whether to authorise entry into the UK was allowed by the ECHR, art 5(1)(f), as long as they were detained in reasonable conditions and not for excessive periods.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370347408652

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

they were detained in reasonable conditions and not for excessive periods

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ate for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 41, the House of Lords held that detention of asylum seekers for the purpose of enabling the authorities to decide whether to authorise entry into the UK was allowed by the ECHR, art 5(1)(f), as long as they were detained in reasonable conditions and not for excessive periods.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370348981516

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Simply informing someone at the time of their arrest that they were being arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist (i.e. a broad allegation) did not satisfy this part of the article. However, subsequent questioning in relation to specific offences did provide enough detail for the person questioned to understand why they were arrested, so ultimately satisfying the requirements of the ECHR, art 5(2).

Answer

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK, referred to above, also involved discussion of the ECHR, art 5(2). On this point, the court held that simply informing someone at the time of their arrest that they were being arrested

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370351340812

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK, referred to above, also involved discussion of the ECHR, art 5(2). On this point, the court held that simply informing someone at the time of their arrest that they were being arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist (i.e. a broad allegation) [...]. However, subsequent questioning in relation to specific offences did provide enough detail for the person questioned to understand why they were arrested, so ultimately satisfying the requirements of the ECHR, art 5(2).

Answer

did not satisfy this part of the article

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ferred to above, also involved discussion of the ECHR, art 5(2). On this point, the court held that simply informing someone at the time of their arrest that they were being arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist (i.e. a broad allegation) did not satisfy this part of the article. However, subsequent questioning in relation to specific offences did provide enough detail for the person questioned to understand why they were arrested, so ultimately satisfying the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370352913676

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK, referred to above, also involved discussion of the ECHR, art 5(2). On this point, the court held that simply informing someone at the time of their arrest that they were being arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist (i.e. a broad allegation) did not satisfy this part of the article. However, [...] did provide enough detail for the person questioned to understand why they were arrested, so ultimately satisfying the requirements of the ECHR, art 5(2).

Answer

subsequent questioning in relation to specific offences

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
HR, art 5(2). On this point, the court held that simply informing someone at the time of their arrest that they were being arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist (i.e. a broad allegation) did not satisfy this part of the article. However, subsequent questioning in relation to specific offences did provide enough detail for the person questioned to understand why they were arrested, so ultimately satisfying the requirements of the ECHR, art 5(2).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370354486540

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 [...].

Answer

5(4)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 1370356059404

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121, the ECtHR held that the ECHR, art [...] 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

5(4)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370357632268

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121

Answer

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.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370359991564

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370362350860

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are:

(a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art [...], which allow the state to interfere with the right?
(b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask:
(c) Has there been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5?

Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg.

Answer

5(1)(a) to (f)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
/head>Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are: (a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which allow the state to interfere with the right? (b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been l

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370363923724

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are:

(a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which [...]?
(b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask:
(c) Has there been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5?

Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg.

Answer

allow the state to interfere with the right

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
n>Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are: (a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which allow the state to interfere with the right? (b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370365496588

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are:

(a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which allow the state to interfere with the right?
(b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about '[...]'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask:
(c) Has there been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5?

Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg.

Answer

in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
are: (a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which allow the state to interfere with the right? (b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask: (c) Has there been an interference by the state with on

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370367069452

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are:

(a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which allow the state to interfere with the right?
(b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask:
(c) Has there been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in [...] of the ECHR, art 5?

Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg.

Answer

paragraphs 2–4

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
d by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask: (c) Has there been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5? Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensati

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370368642316

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are:

(a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which allow the state to interfere with the right?
(b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask:
(c) Has there been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5?

Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art [...] to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg.

Answer

5(5)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5? Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimatel

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370370215180

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are:

(a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which allow the state to interfere with the right?
(b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask:
(c) Has there been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5?

Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to [...]. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg.

Answer

claim an enforceable right to compensation

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5? Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg.</s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370371788044

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Therefore, in dealing with circumstances which engage the ECHR, art 5, the first questions to ask are:

(a) Does the deprivation of liberty fall into one of the permissible categories set out in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f), which allow the state to interfere with the right?
(b) Is this deprivation of liberty brought about 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law'? Even if a person has been lawfully arrested and detained within the terms of the ECHR, art 5, it is also important to ask:
(c) Has there been an interference by the state with one or more of the due process rights protected in paragraphs 2–4 of the ECHR, art 5?

Finally, if a person is the victim of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if [...].

Answer

an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
m of an Article 5 breach by the state, they are entitled by the ECHR, art 5(5) to claim an enforceable right to compensation. In the UK, however, under the procedures applying through the HRA 1998, the above right would only come into play if an applicant ultimately needed to take their case to Strasbourg.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370375195916

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333

Answer

This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370377555212

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370381487372

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as [...], had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

Answer

'one of the most dangerous' of individuals

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370383060236

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about [...] for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

Answer

2½km²

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
tained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370384633100

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for [...]. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

Answer

16 months

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twi

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370386205964

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by [...]. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

Answer

others subject to similar orders

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone cal

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370387778828

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to [...] and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

Answer

report to the police twice a day

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.</b

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370389351692

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to [...]. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

Answer

get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
onstituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370390924556

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to [...].

Answer

that of a person in an open prison

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ly was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370392497420

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

According to the court, the difference between a deprivation of liberty and mere restrictions on liberty of movement is one of '[...]', the 'starting point' of the analysis being the 'concrete situation', in relation to which 'a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question must be taken into account’. Taking this approach, the court in Guzzardi concluded that the cumulative impact of the restrictions did amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Answer

degree or intensity

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
According to the court, the difference between a deprivation of liberty and mere restrictions on liberty of movement is one of 'degree or intensity', the 'starting point' of the analysis being the 'concrete situation', in relation to which 'a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370394070284

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

According to the court, the difference between a deprivation of liberty and mere restrictions on liberty of movement is one of 'degree or intensity', the 'starting point' of the analysis being the 'concrete situation', in relation to which '[...]’. Taking this approach, the court in Guzzardi concluded that the cumulative impact of the restrictions did amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Answer

a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question must be taken into account

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
n>According to the court, the difference between a deprivation of liberty and mere restrictions on liberty of movement is one of 'degree or intensity', the 'starting point' of the analysis being the 'concrete situation', in relation to which 'a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question must be taken into account’. Taking this approach, the court in Guzzardi concluded that the cumulative impact of the restrictions did amount to a deprivation of liberty.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370395643148

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

According to the court, the difference between a deprivation of liberty and mere restrictions on liberty of movement is one of 'degree or intensity', the 'starting point' of the analysis being the 'concrete situation', in relation to which 'a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question must be taken into account’. Taking this approach, the court in Guzzardi concluded that the cumulative impact of the restrictions [...].

Answer

did amount to a deprivation of liberty

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
le range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question must be taken into account’. Taking this approach, the court in Guzzardi concluded that the cumulative impact of the restrictions did amount to a deprivation of liberty.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370397216012

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 Terrorism Act 2005 [...].

Answer

did in fact amount to a deprivation of liberty

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
/head>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 Terrorism Act 2005 did in fact amount to a deprivation of liberty.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370398788876

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370401148172

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Re JJ [2007] UKHL 45, the House of Lords upheld the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal that [...] imposed by the Home Secretary under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 did in fact amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Answer

certain non-derogating control orders

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370402721036

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 [...] under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 did in fact amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Answer

Home Secretary

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370405342476

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

For an example of a case in which a control order was upheld on appeal, distinguishing Re JJ, see [case].

Answer

Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
For an example of a case in which a control order was upheld on appeal, distinguishing Re JJ, see Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370407701772

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

For an example of a case in which a control order was upheld on appeal, distinguishing Re JJ, see Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47. In this case, the degree of physical restraint was [...] as ‘E' lived at home and was able to leave his home for a period up to 12 hours without geographical restriction.

Answer

not seen to amount to a deprivation of liberty

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
For an example of a case in which a control order was upheld on appeal, distinguishing Re JJ, see Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47. In this case, the degree of physical restraint was not seen to amount to a deprivation of liberty as ‘E' lived at home and was able to leave his home for a period up to 12 hours without geographical restriction.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370409274636

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

For an example of a case in which a control order was upheld on appeal, distinguishing Re JJ, see Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47. In this case, the degree of physical restraint was not seen to amount to a deprivation of liberty as ‘E' [...].

Answer

lived at home and was able to leave his home for a period up to 12 hours without geographical restriction

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e in which a control order was upheld on appeal, distinguishing Re JJ, see Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47. In this case, the degree of physical restraint was not seen to amount to a deprivation of liberty as ‘E' lived at home and was able to leave his home for a period up to 12 hours without geographical restriction.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370410847500

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

For an example of a case in which a control order was upheld on appeal, distinguishing Re JJ, see Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47. In this case, the degree of physical restraint was not seen to amount to a deprivation of liberty as ‘E' lived at home and was able to leave his home for a period up to [...] without geographical restriction.

Answer

12 hours

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Re JJ, see Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] UKHL 47. In this case, the degree of physical restraint was not seen to amount to a deprivation of liberty as ‘E' lived at home and was able to leave his home for a period up to 12 hours without geographical restriction.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370412420364

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 [...] 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 curfew

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370413993228

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 150 miles from his family [...] under the ECHR, art 5. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.

Answer

did amount to a violation of his right to liberty

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
/head>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.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370415566092

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 150 miles from his family did amount to a violation of his right to liberty under the ECHR, art [...]. The appellant had been subjected to a control order since 2008.

Answer

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370417925388

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 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 [time period].

Answer

since 2008 (2 years)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 (2 years).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370421333260

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where [...].

Answer

there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370422906124

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art [...] is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'.

Answer

6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370424478988

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of [...] under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'.

Answer

a fair trial

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370426051852

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In [case], it was accepted that a control order would affect such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

Re MB

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In Re MB, it was accepted that a control order would affect such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a speci

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370428411148

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In Re MB, it was accepted that [...] and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

a control order would affect such rights

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370429984012

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In Re MB, it was accepted that a control order would affect such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that [...], and that the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ere there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In Re MB, it was accepted that a control order would affect such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art 6(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370431556876

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In Re MB, it was accepted that a control order would affect such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that [...].

Answer

the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art 6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art 6(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370433129740

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In Re MB, it was accepted that a control order would affect such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art [...].

Answer

6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
n engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art 6(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370434702604

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

the protection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In Re MB, it was accepted that a control order would affect such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 [...]. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that the regime was therefore not in breach of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

had been engaged

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ection of a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) is engaged where there is a 'determination of a person's civil rights and obligations'. In Re MB, it was accepted that a control order would affect such rights and therefore that the ECHR, art 6 had been engaged. A majority of the House of Lords held that the involvement of a special advocate was, in principle, capable of assuaging any disadvantage flowing from non-disclosure, and that the regi

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370436275468

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in [case], the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR held that a 'controlee' must be given sufficient information about the allegations made against him to enable him to give effective instructions, so that the demands of the ECHR, art 6(1) can be satisfied.

Answer

A v UK (2009) 49 EHRR 29

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in A v UK (2009) 49 EHRR 29, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR held that a 'controlee' must be given sufficient information about the allegations made against him to enable him to give effective instructions, so that

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370438634764

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in A v UK (2009) 49 EHRR 29, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR held that [...], so that the demands of the ECHR, art 6(1) can be satisfied.

Answer

a 'controlee' must be given sufficient information about the allegations made against him to enable him to give effective instructions

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370440994060

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in [case] one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR 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'. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.

Answer

Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370443353356

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art [...], for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR 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'. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.

Answer

6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous find

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370444926220

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of [...] the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR 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'. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.

Answer

8:1

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case ag

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370446499084

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that [...]. Article 6(1) of the ECHR 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'. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.

Answer

where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: 'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations again

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370448071948

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was [...], the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR 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'. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.

Answer

based solely or primarily on closed material

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: 'the control

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370449644812

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material [...] and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR 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'. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.

Answer

consisted only of general assertions

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370452266252

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

An arrest under the PACE 1984, s [...] may now be exercised in relation to 'any offence'.

Answer

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An arrest under the PACE 1984, s 24 may now be exercised in relation to 'any offence'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370453839116

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

An arrest under the [statute] may now be exercised in relation to 'any offence'.

Answer

PACE 1984, s 24

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An arrest under the PACE 1984, s 24 may now be exercised in relation to 'any offence'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370456198412

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

An arrest under the PACE [...], s 24 may now be exercised in relation to 'any offence'.

Answer

1984

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An arrest under the PACE 1984, s 24 may now be exercised in relation to 'any offence'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370458557708

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

An arrest under the PACE 1984, s 24 may now be exercised in relation to [...].

Answer

'any offence'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
An arrest under the PACE 1984, s 24 may now be exercised in relation to 'any offence'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370460392716

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

At the time of arrest, a person is entitled to be informed of the ground for the arrest or, if that is not practicable, they are entitled to be informed of this as soon as practicable after arrest (PACE 1984, s [...] and Code G, paragraph 3.3)

Answer

28(3)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
>At the time of arrest, a person is entitled to be informed of the ground for the arrest or, if that is not practicable, they are entitled to be informed of this as soon as practicable after arrest (PACE 1984, s 28(3) and Code G, paragraph 3.3)<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370461965580

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

PACE 1984, s 28(3)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
At the time of arrest, a person is entitled to be informed of the ground for the arrest or, if that is not practicable, they are entitled to be informed of this as soon as practicable after arrest (PACE 1984, s 28(3) and Code G, paragraph 3.3)

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370464324876

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

'An arrested person must be given sufficient information to [...], e.g. when a person is arrested on suspicion of committing an offence they must be informed of the suspected offence's nature, when and where it was committed. The suspect must also be informed of the reason or reasons why arrest is considered necessary. Vague or technical language should be avoided.'

Answer

enable them to understand they have been deprived of their liberty and the reason they have been arrested

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
'An arrested person must be given sufficient information to enable them to understand they have been deprived of their liberty and the reason they have been arrested, e.g. when a person is arrested on suspicion of committing an offence they must be informed of the suspected offence's nature, when and where it was committed. The suspect must also be

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370465897740

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A terrorist for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000, s [...] is defined as a person who has committed an offence under various sections of the Act (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(a)), or 'is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism' (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(b)).

Answer

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A terrorist for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 is defined as a person who has committed an offence under various sections of the Act (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(a)), or 'is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or ins

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370467470604

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A terrorist for the purposes of the [statute] is defined as a person who has committed an offence under various sections of the Act (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(a)), or 'is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism' (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(b)).

Answer

Terrorism Act 2000, s 41

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370469829900

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A terrorist for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 is defined as [...] (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(a)), or 'is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism' (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(b)).

Answer

a person who has committed an offence under various sections of the Act

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370471402764

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A terrorist for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 is defined as a person who [...] (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(a)), or 'is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism' (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(b)).

Answer

has committed an offence under various sections of the Act

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370472975628

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A terrorist for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 is defined as a person who has committed an offence under various sections of the Act (Terrorism Act 2000, s [...]), or 'is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism' (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(b)).

Answer

40(1)(a)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370474548492

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A terrorist for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000, s 41 is defined as a person who has committed an offence under various sections of the Act (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(a)), or '[...]' (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(b)).

Answer

is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370476121356

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

40(1)(b)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
41 is defined as a person who has committed an offence under various sections of the Act (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(a)), or 'is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism' (Terrorism Act 2000, s 40(1)(b)).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370477694220

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Once arrested and taken to a police station, a person can be detained before charge for two reasons: if 'the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that [...] or to obtain such evidence by questioning him' (PACE 1984, s 37(2)).

Answer

his detention without being charged is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Once arrested and taken to a police station, a person can be detained before charge for two reasons: if 'the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that his detention without being charged is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest or to obtain such evidence by questioning him' (PACE 1984, s 37(2)).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370479267084

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Once arrested and taken to a police station, a person can be detained before charge for two reasons: if 'the custody officer has [...] that his detention without being charged is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest or to obtain such evidence by questioning him' (PACE 1984, s 37(2)).

Answer

reasonable grounds for believing

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370480839948

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Once arrested and taken to a police station, a person can be detained before charge for two reasons: if 'the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that his detention without being charged is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest or [...]' (PACE 1984, s 37(2)).

Answer

to obtain such evidence by questioning him

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e detained before charge for two reasons: if 'the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that his detention without being charged is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest or to obtain such evidence by questioning him' (PACE 1984, s 37(2)).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370482412812

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

37(2)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
officer has reasonable grounds for believing that his detention without being charged is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest or to obtain such evidence by questioning him' (PACE 1984, s 37(2)).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370483985676

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

PACE 1984, s 37(2)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
'the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that his detention without being charged is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest or to obtain such evidence by questioning him' (PACE 1984, s 37(2)).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370486344972

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5

Answer

The question arose as to whether crowd control measures, in which the applicant was detained for seven hours within a police cordon, constituted a 'deprivation of liberty'. The court acknowledged that the question of whether the police action constituted a deprivation of liberty contrary to the ECHR, art 5 or simply a restriction of liberty had to be determined taking into account all the circumstances of the situation; the determination of such cases would be highly fact-sensitive and would require a balance between the individual interest and that of the community. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the applicant's liberty, as the overall police operation was considered to have been carried out in difficult circumstances and in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, the question arose as to whether crowd control measures, in which the applicant was detained for seven hours within a police cordon, constituted a 'deprivation of liberty'. The court a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370488704268

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370491063564

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, the question arose as to whether crowd control measures, in which the applicant was detained for [...] within a police cordon, constituted a 'deprivation of liberty'. The court acknowledged that the question of whether the police action constituted a deprivation of liberty contrary to the ECHR, art 5 or simply a restriction of liberty had to be determined taking into account all the circumstances of the situation; the determination of such cases would be highly fact-sensitive and would require a balance between the individual interest and that of the community. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the applicant's liberty, as the overall police operation was considered to have been carried out in difficult circumstances and in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

Answer

seven hours

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370492636428

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, the question arose as to whether [...], in which the applicant was detained for seven hours within a police cordon, constituted a 'deprivation of liberty'. The court acknowledged that the question of whether the police action constituted a deprivation of liberty contrary to the ECHR, art 5 or simply a restriction of liberty had to be determined taking into account all the circumstances of the situation; the determination of such cases would be highly fact-sensitive and would require a balance between the individual interest and that of the community. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the applicant's liberty, as the overall police operation was considered to have been carried out in difficult circumstances and in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

Answer

crowd control measures

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370494209292

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, the question arose as to whether crowd control measures, in which the applicant was detained for seven hours within a police cordon, constituted a 'deprivation of liberty'. The court acknowledged that the question of whether the police action constituted a deprivation of liberty contrary to the ECHR, art 5 or simply a restriction of liberty had to be determined taking into account all the circumstances of the situation; the determination of such cases would be highly fact-sensitive and would require [...]. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the applicant's liberty, as the overall police operation was considered to have been carried out in difficult circumstances and in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

Answer

a balance between the individual interest and that of the community

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
vation of liberty contrary to the ECHR, art 5 or simply a restriction of liberty had to be determined taking into account all the circumstances of the situation; the determination of such cases would be highly fact-sensitive and would require a balance between the individual interest and that of the community. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the app

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370495782156

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, the question arose as to whether crowd control measures, in which the applicant was detained for seven hours within a police cordon, constituted a 'deprivation of liberty'. The court acknowledged that the question of whether the police action constituted a deprivation of liberty contrary to the ECHR, art 5 or simply a restriction of liberty had to be determined taking into account all the circumstances of the situation; the determination of such cases would be highly fact-sensitive and would require a balance between the individual interest and that of the community. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was [...], as the overall police operation was considered to have been carried out in difficult circumstances and in a reasonable and proportionate manner.

Answer

not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the applicant's liberty

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
be highly fact-sensitive and would require a balance between the individual interest and that of the community. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the applicant's liberty, as the overall police operation was considered to have been carried out in difficult circumstances and in a reasonable and proportionate manner.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370497355020

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Austin v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, the question arose as to whether crowd control measures, in which the applicant was detained for seven hours within a police cordon, constituted a 'deprivation of liberty'. The court acknowledged that the question of whether the police action constituted a deprivation of liberty contrary to the ECHR, art 5 or simply a restriction of liberty had to be determined taking into account all the circumstances of the situation; the determination of such cases would be highly fact-sensitive and would require a balance between the individual interest and that of the community. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the applicant's liberty, as [...].

Answer

the overall police operation was considered to have been carried out in difficult circumstances and in a reasonable and proportionate manner

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
l interest and that of the community. In this case, the crowd control exercised by the police in Oxford Circus, London in response to May Day demonstrations in 2001 was not seen to have resulted in a deprivation of the applicant's liberty, as the overall police operation was considered to have been carried out in difficult circumstances and in a reasonable and proportionate manner.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370498927884

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Airey v Ireland (1979-80) 2 EHRR 305

Answer

The applicant was the wife of an alcoholic and violent husband. Irish law allowed recourse to the High Court for obtaining a legal separation, but the proceedings were complex and the applicant was unable to obtain a lawyer willing to act for her, as she could not afford the legal costs and legal aid was not available. The ECtHR found a violation of the ECHR, art 6(1), as she had been effectively denied access to a court for the determination of her civil rights.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
in Airey v Ireland (1979-80) 2 EHRR 305. The applicant was the wife of an alcoholic and violent husband. Irish law allowed recourse to the High Court for obtaining a legal separation, but the proceedings were complex and the

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370501287180

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Airey v Ireland (1979-80) 2 EHRR 305

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370503646476

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Airey v Ireland (1979-80) 2 EHRR 305. The applicant was the wife of an alcoholic and violent husband. Irish law allowed recourse to the High Court for obtaining a legal separation, but the proceedings were complex and the applicant was unable to obtain a lawyer willing to act for her, as she could not afford the legal costs and legal aid was not available. The ECtHR found a violation of the ECHR, art 6(1), as [...].

Answer

she had been effectively denied access to a court for the determination of her civil rights

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
eparation, but the proceedings were complex and the applicant was unable to obtain a lawyer willing to act for her, as she could not afford the legal costs and legal aid was not available. The ECtHR found a violation of the ECHR, art 6(1), as she had been effectively denied access to a court for the determination of her civil rights.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370506267916

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In [case], Lord Hope concluded that the ECHR, art 6 was not engaged as the bank had the benefit of the remaining safeguard of being able to apply to the High Court to set aside the direction made against it (which prevented it from operating in the UK). Therefore, at the point in the process at which the bank was claiming that its ECHR, art 6 rights were violated (because of the lack of opportunity it had to counter the allegations against it), the overall issue had not yet reached a determination in his view.

Answer

Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2), [2013] UKSC 39

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370508627212

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2), [2013] UKSC 39, Lord Hope concluded that the ECHR, art 6 [...] as the bank had the benefit of the remaining safeguard of being able to apply to the High Court to set aside the direction made against it (which prevented it from operating in the UK). Therefore, at the point in the process at which the bank was claiming that its ECHR, art 6 rights were violated (because of the lack of opportunity it had to counter the allegations against it), the overall issue had not yet reached a determination in his view.

Answer

was not engaged

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370510200076

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2), [2013] UKSC 39, Lord Hope concluded that the ECHR, art 6 was not engaged as [...]. Therefore, at the point in the process at which the bank was claiming that its ECHR, art 6 rights were violated (because of the lack of opportunity it had to counter the allegations against it), the overall issue had not yet reached a determination in his view.

Answer

the bank had the benefit of the remaining safeguard of being able to apply to the High Court to set aside the direction made against it (which prevented it from operating in the UK)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2), [2013] UKSC 39, Lord Hope concluded that the ECHR, art 6 was not engaged as the bank had the benefit of the remaining safeguard of being able to apply to the High Court to set aside the direction made against it (which prevented it from operating in the UK). Therefore, at the point in the process at which the bank was claiming that its ECHR, art 6 rights were violated (because of the lack of opportunity it had to counter the allegations ag

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370511772940

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

R (Gudanaviciene and Others) v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor, [2014] EWCA Civ 1622

Answer

The claimants were successful in challenging refusals for civil legal aid (exceptional case funding – ‘ECF’). This had been refused in response to “Guidance” published by the Lord Chancellor under the new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 funding regime. The Court of Appeal held that the Guidance was incompatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR (and also Art 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.) The case was very notable for the court’s strong criticism of the very restrictive and misleading interpretation of ECtHR and domestic case law applied in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance and enforced by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. Lord Dyson MR said that the “critical question is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his case effectively and without obvious unfairness”. This will depend on a number of circumstances, notably the difficulty of the legal issues at stake, the capability of the litigant in person, and the volume of evidence. Clearly the court felt that under the new regime the balance had been tilted considerably too far against such litigants.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R (Gudanaviciene and Others) v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor, [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, the claimants were successful in challenging refusals for civil legal aid (exceptional case funding – ‘ECF’). This had been refused in response to “Guidance” published by the Lord Chan

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370513607948

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

R (Gudanaviciene and Others) v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor, [2014] EWCA Civ 1622

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370515442956

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (Gudanaviciene and Others) v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor, [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, the claimants were successful in challenging refusals for civil legal aid (exceptional case funding – ‘ECF’). This had been refused in response to “Guidance” published by the Lord Chancellor under the new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 funding regime. The Court of Appeal held that [...] (and also Art 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.) The case was very notable for the court’s strong criticism of the very restrictive and misleading interpretation of ECtHR and domestic case law applied in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance and enforced by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. Lord Dyson MR said that the “critical question is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his case effectively and without obvious unfairness”. This will depend on a number of circumstances, notably the difficulty of the legal issues at stake, the capability of the litigant in person, and the volume of evidence. Clearly the court felt that under the new regime the balance had been tilted considerably too far against such litigants.

Answer

the Guidance was incompatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
al aid (exceptional case funding – ‘ECF’). This had been refused in response to “Guidance” published by the Lord Chancellor under the new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 funding regime. The Court of Appeal held that the Guidance was incompatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR (and also Art 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.) The case was very notable for the court’s strong criticism of the very restrictive and misleading interpretation of ECtHR and d

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370517540108

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (Gudanaviciene and Others) v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor, [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, the claimants were successful in challenging refusals for civil legal aid (exceptional case funding – ‘ECF’). This had been refused in response to “Guidance” published by the Lord Chancellor under the new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 funding regime. The Court of Appeal held that the Guidance was incompatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR (and also Art 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.) The case was very notable for the court’s strong criticism of the very restrictive and misleading interpretation of ECtHR and domestic case law applied in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance and enforced by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. Lord Dyson MR said that the “critical question is whether [...]”. This will depend on a number of circumstances, notably the difficulty of the legal issues at stake, the capability of the litigant in person, and the volume of evidence. Clearly the court felt that under the new regime the balance had been tilted considerably too far against such litigants.

Answer

an unrepresented litigant is able to present his case effectively and without obvious unfairness

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
icism of the very restrictive and misleading interpretation of ECtHR and domestic case law applied in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance and enforced by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. Lord Dyson MR said that the “critical question is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his case effectively and without obvious unfairness”. This will depend on a number of circumstances, notably the difficulty of the legal issues at stake, the capability of the litigant in person, and the volume of evidence. Clearly the c

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370519112972

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (Gudanaviciene and Others) v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor, [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, the claimants were successful in challenging refusals for civil legal aid (exceptional case funding – ‘ECF’). This had been refused in response to “Guidance” published by the Lord Chancellor under the new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 funding regime. The Court of Appeal held that the Guidance was incompatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR (and also Art 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.) The case was very notable for the court’s strong criticism of the very restrictive and misleading interpretation of ECtHR and domestic case law applied in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance and enforced by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. [who] said that the “critical question is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his case effectively and without obvious unfairness”. This will depend on a number of circumstances, notably the difficulty of the legal issues at stake, the capability of the litigant in person, and the volume of evidence. Clearly the court felt that under the new regime the balance had been tilted considerably too far against such litigants.

Answer

Lord Dyson MR

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ts.) The case was very notable for the court’s strong criticism of the very restrictive and misleading interpretation of ECtHR and domestic case law applied in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance and enforced by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. Lord Dyson MR said that the “critical question is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his case effectively and without obvious unfairness”. This will depend on a number of circumstanc

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370520947980

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (Gudanaviciene and Others) v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor, [2014] EWCA Civ 1622, the claimants were successful in challenging refusals for civil legal aid (exceptional case funding – ‘ECF’). This had been refused in response to “Guidance” published by the Lord Chancellor under the new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 funding regime. The Court of Appeal held that the Guidance was incompatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR (and also Art 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.) The case was very notable for the court’s strong criticism of the very restrictive and misleading interpretation of ECtHR and domestic case law applied in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance and enforced by the Director of Legal Aid Casework. Lord Dyson MR said that the “critical question is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his case effectively and without obvious unfairness”. This will depend on a number of circumstances, notably [...]. Clearly the court felt that under the new regime the balance had been tilted considerably too far against such litigants.

Answer

the difficulty of the legal issues at stake, the capability of the litigant in person, and the volume of evidence

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
irector of Legal Aid Casework. Lord Dyson MR said that the “critical question is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his case effectively and without obvious unfairness”. This will depend on a number of circumstances, notably the difficulty of the legal issues at stake, the capability of the litigant in person, and the volume of evidence. Clearly the court felt that under the new regime the balance had been tilted considerably too far against such litigants.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370523569420

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

If there was no reason to doubt the integrity of the first instance process, then the added safeguard of [...] would likely satisfy the requirements of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

a judicial review process

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
If there was no reason to doubt the integrity of the first instance process, then the added safeguard of a judicial review process would likely satisfy the requirements of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370525142284

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In [case], the Courts-Martial Appeal Court stated that a prosecutor had the ability to influence and even mislead a court. Therefore, his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

R v Stow [2005] All ER (D) 132 (May)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370527501580

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R v Stow [2005] All ER (D) 132 (May), the Courts-Martial Appeal Court stated that a prosecutor had the ability to influence and even mislead a court. Therefore, his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was [...] In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
court. Therefore, his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370529074444

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R v Stow [2005] All ER (D) 132 (May), the Courts-Martial Appeal Court stated that a prosecutor had the ability to influence and even mislead a court. Therefore, his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority [...].

Answer

did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370530647308

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R v Stow [2005] All ER (D) 132 (May), the Courts-Martial Appeal Court stated that a prosecutor had the ability to influence and even mislead a court. Therefore, [...] when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his performance as prosecuting authority could have impacted upon his promotion prospects. In the circumstances, the prosecuting authority did not comply with the necessary safeguards necessary for the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Stow [2005] All ER (D) 132 (May), the Courts-Martial Appeal Court stated that a prosecutor had the ability to influence and even mislead a court. Therefore, his independence and impartiality were matters to be considered when assessing whether or not there had been proper compliance with the ECHR, art 6(1). In the instant case, the prosecutor at the defendant's court-martial was of junior rank and his pe

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370532744460

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF, AM and AN [2009] UKHL 28 one of the main issues was whether it was possible, consistently with the right to a fair hearing guaranteed in the ECHR, art 6(1), for suspects to be told of allegations only in general terms, with the details being treated as closed material. By a majority of 8:1 the House of Lords departed from its previous findings made in Re MB. The House of Lords held that where the disclosed material consisted only of general assertions and where the case against the 'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR required a 'core irreducible minimum' of procedural fairness such that: [...]. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back to the High Court for further consideration.

Answer

'the controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to give effective instructions to the Special Advocate'

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
'controlled person' was based solely or primarily on closed material, the right to a fair trial under the ECHR, art 6(1) would not be satisfied. Article 6(1) of the ECHR 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'. The House of Lords read down the relevant Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provision, using its powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1), and remitted the appellants' cases back

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370534317324

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1

Answer

Without obtaining a far clearer undertaking from the Jordanian Government, the ECtHR considered that a deportation by UK authorities would amount to a violation of the ECHR, art 6 because of the real risk of evidence, which had been secured through torture, being used against the applicant in the Jordanian criminal justice system. This risk was seen to represent a flagrant denial of justice and its prohibition was considered to be fundamental by the ECtHR.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
case of Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1, (involving the individual also known as Abu Qatada). Without obtaining a far clearer undertaking from the Jordanian Government, the ECtHR considered that a deportation by UK authoritie

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370536676620

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370539035916

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

case of Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1, (involving the individual also known as Abu Qatada). Without obtaining a far clearer undertaking from the Jordanian Government, the ECtHR considered that a deportation by UK authorities would amount to a violation of the ECHR, art 6 because of [...]. This risk was seen to represent a flagrant denial of justice and its prohibition was considered to be fundamental by the ECtHR.

Answer

the real risk of evidence, which had been secured through torture, being used against the applicant in the Jordanian criminal justice system

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
involving the individual also known as Abu Qatada). Without obtaining a far clearer undertaking from the Jordanian Government, the ECtHR considered that a deportation by UK authorities would amount to a violation of the ECHR, art 6 because of the real risk of evidence, which had been secured through torture, being used against the applicant in the Jordanian criminal justice system. This risk was seen to represent a flagrant denial of justice and its prohibition was considered to be fundamental by the ECtHR.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370540608780

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

case of Othman v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1, (involving the individual also known as Abu Qatada). Without obtaining a far clearer undertaking from the Jordanian Government, the ECtHR considered that a deportation by UK authorities would amount to a violation of the ECHR, art 6 because of the real risk of evidence, which had been secured through torture, being used against the applicant in the Jordanian criminal justice system. This risk was seen to represent a [...] and its prohibition was considered to be fundamental by the ECtHR.

Answer

flagrant denial of justice

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
horities would amount to a violation of the ECHR, art 6 because of the real risk of evidence, which had been secured through torture, being used against the applicant in the Jordanian criminal justice system. This risk was seen to represent a flagrant denial of justice and its prohibition was considered to be fundamental by the ECtHR.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370542181644

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Brennan v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 18

Answer

The ECtHR found that the presence of a police officer within hearing range during the applicant's first consultation with his solicitor infringed his right to an effective exercise of his defence rights, a violation of the ECHR, art 6(3)(c) read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Brennan v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 18. The ECtHR found that the presence of a police officer within hearing range during the applicant's first consultation with his solicitor infringed his right to an effective exercise of

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370544540940

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Brennan v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 18. The ECtHR found that the presence of a police officer within hearing range during the applicant's first consultation with his solicitor infringed his right to an effective exercise of his defence rights, a violation of the ECHR, art [...] read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

6(3)(c)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
EHRR 18. The ECtHR found that the presence of a police officer within hearing range during the applicant's first consultation with his solicitor infringed his right to an effective exercise of his defence rights, a violation of the ECHR, art 6(3)(c) read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370546113804

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
a police officer within hearing range during the applicant's first consultation with his solicitor infringed his right to an effective exercise of his defence rights, a violation of the ECHR, art 6(3)(c) read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370547686668

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In McGonnell v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 289, the ECtHR made it clear that even [...] could constitute a violation of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

a relatively minor doubt as to the impartiality of a tribunal

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 1370549521676

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 more than four days and six hours was considered too long for the purposes of the ECHR, art [...].

Answer

5(3)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ithout 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).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370551094540

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Under changes made to the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 306, a further extension of the period of detention can be granted for a period ending not later than (currently, as above) [...].

Answer

14 days from the time of arrest

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
><head>Under changes made to the Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8 by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 306, a further extension of the period of detention can be granted for a period ending not later than (currently, as above) 14 days from the time of arrest.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370552667404

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 [...]. 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

the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370554240268

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.

Answer

HM Advocate v JK [2002] UKPC D1, 29

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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 1370557648140

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article [...] of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'.

Answer

6(3)(c)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370559221004

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to [...]'.

Answer

defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370560793868

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'. The court recognised that under certain circumstances denial of access to legal advice during questioning of a criminal suspect will [...].

Answer

call into question the fairness of any subsequent trial process

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
harged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'. The court recognised that under certain circumstances denial of access to legal advice during questioning of a criminal suspect will call into question the fairness of any subsequent trial process.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370562366732

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

questioning of a criminal suspect

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'. The court recognised that under certain circumstances denial of access to legal advice during questioning of a criminal suspect will call into question the fairness of any subsequent trial process.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370563939596

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 [...].

Answer

denial of access by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370565512460

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 by Murray to legal advice for the first [...] he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.

Answer

48 hours

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370567085324

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 [...] for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.

Answer

denial of access by Murray to legal advice

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370568658188

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where [...].

Answer

adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370570231052

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In [case], the House of Lords declared that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41(3)(c), which prevented the defendant in a rape trial from adducing evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history, would impede his right to a fair trial in violation of the ECHR, art 6(1).

Answer

R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546, the House of Lords declared that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41(3)(c), which prevented the defendant in a rape trial from adducing evidence relating to the comp

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370572590348

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546, the House of Lords declared that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41(3)(c), which prevented the defendant in a rape trial from adducing evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history, would impede his right to a fair trial in violation of the ECHR, art 6(1). Lord Steyn undertook a bold interpretation of the 1999 Act using the court's new powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s [...]. Evidence of a complainant's previous sexual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question. The House of Lords concluded that the relevance of the previous sexual conduct was a matter for the trial judge to determine.

Answer

3(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
elating to the complainant's sexual history, would impede his right to a fair trial in violation of the ECHR, art 6(1). Lord Steyn undertook a bold interpretation of the 1999 Act using the court's new powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1). Evidence of a complainant's previous sexual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not includi

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370574163212

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546, the House of Lords declared that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41(3)(c), which prevented the defendant in a rape trial from adducing evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history, would impede his right to a fair trial in violation of the ECHR, art 6(1). Lord Steyn undertook a bold interpretation of the 1999 Act using the court's new powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1). Evidence of a complainant's previous sexual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question. The House of Lords concluded that [...].

Answer

the relevance of the previous sexual conduct was a matter for the trial judge to determine

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
xual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question. The House of Lords concluded that the relevance of the previous sexual conduct was a matter for the trial judge to determine.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370575736076

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R v A (Complainant's Sexual History) (No 2) [2001] 2 WLR 1546, the House of Lords declared that the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s 41(3)(c), which prevented the defendant in a rape trial from adducing evidence relating to the complainant's sexual history, would impede his right to a fair trial in violation of the ECHR, art 6(1). Lord Steyn undertook a bold interpretation of the 1999 Act using the court's new powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1). Evidence of a complainant's previous sexual history was to be admissible where [...]. The House of Lords concluded that the relevance of the previous sexual conduct was a matter for the trial judge to determine.

Answer

that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
n violation of the ECHR, art 6(1). Lord Steyn undertook a bold interpretation of the 1999 Act using the court's new powers under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 3(1). Evidence of a complainant's previous sexual history was to be admissible where that evidence, and questioning concerning it, was so relevant to the issue of consent that by not including it the fairness of the trial would be brought into question. The House of Lords concluded that the relevance of the previous sexual conduct was a matter for the trial judge to determine.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370577308940

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

6(3)(d)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The right to examine a witness contained in the ECHR, art 6(3)(d) is based on the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged.</s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370578881804

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The right to examine a witness contained in the ECHR, art 6(3)(d) is based on the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, [...].

Answer

all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370580454668

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 'in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law' and then only under the specific circumstances outlined in [...]. These sub-paragraphs define a variety of situations in which a person may be legitimately deprived of their liberty by the state.

Answer

sub-paragraphs (a)–(f)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
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 of their liberty by the state.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370582027532

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

R (on the application of Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] EWCA Civ 275

Answer

The appellant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner who had been convicted of murder. He was diagnosed with cancer of the colon and was receiving medication from the healthcare centre at the prison. He alleged that the Secretary of State's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3. The Court of Appeal stated that, to show a breach of the ECHR, art 3, the conduct on the part of the state must be of a serious and wholly unacceptable kind. The threshold had not been reached in the instant case.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R (on the application of Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] EWCA Civ 275, the appellant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner who had been convicted of murder. He was diagnosed with cancer of the colon and was receiving medication from the healthcare centre

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370584386828

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

R (on the application of Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] EWCA Civ 275

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370586746124

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (on the application of Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] EWCA Civ 275, the appellant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner who had been convicted of murder. He was diagnosed with cancer of the colon and was receiving medication from the healthcare centre at the prison. He alleged that the Secretary of State's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3. The Court of Appeal stated that, [...]. The threshold had not been reached in the instant case.

Answer

to show a breach of the ECHR, art 3, the conduct on the part of the state must be of a serious and wholly unacceptable kind

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3. The Court of Appeal stated that, to show a breach of the ECHR, art 3, the conduct on the part of the state must be of a serious and wholly unacceptable kind. The threshold had not been reached in the instant case.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370588318988

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R (on the application of Spinks) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2005] EWCA Civ 275, the appellant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner who had been convicted of murder. He was diagnosed with cancer of the colon and was receiving medication from the healthcare centre at the prison. He alleged that [...]. The Court of Appeal stated that, to show a breach of the ECHR, art 3, the conduct on the part of the state must be of a serious and wholly unacceptable kind. The threshold had not been reached in the instant case.

Answer

the Secretary of State's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ment, [2005] EWCA Civ 275, the appellant was a mandatory life sentence prisoner who had been convicted of murder. He was diagnosed with cancer of the colon and was receiving medication from the healthcare centre at the prison. He alleged that the Secretary of State's failure to release him on compassionate grounds interfered with his attendance for chemotherapy at hospital and attendance at a hospice for counselling and therefore amounted to a breach of the ECHR, art 3. The Court of Appeal stated that, to show a breach of the ECHR, art 3, the conduct on the part of the state must be of a serious and wholly unacceptable kind. The threshold had not been

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370589891852

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The state was not considered to be under an obligation to prolong M's life.

Answer

NHS Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H [2001] 1 All ER 801

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
001] 1 All ER 801, for instance, the Family Division of the High Court held that the withdrawal of treatment (through hydration and nutrition) to M, a patient in a persistent vegetative state, would not constitute a breach of the ECHR, art 2. The state was not considered to be under an obligation to prolong M's life.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370592251148

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In [case], for instance, the Family Division of the High Court held that the withdrawal of treatment (through hydration and nutrition) to M, a patient in a persistent vegetative state, would not constitute a breach of the ECHR, art 2. The state was not considered to be under an obligation to prolong M's life.

Answer

NHS Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H [2001] 1 All ER 801

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370594610444

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In NHS Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H [2001] 1 All ER 801, for instance, the Family Division of the High Court held that [...], a patient in a persistent vegetative state, would not constitute a breach of the ECHR, art 2. The state was not considered to be under an obligation to prolong M's life.

Answer

the withdrawal of treatment (through hydration and nutrition) to M

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In NHS Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H [2001] 1 All ER 801, for instance, the Family Division of the High Court held that the withdrawal of treatment (through hydration and nutrition) to M, a patient in a persistent vegetative state, would not constitute a breach of the ECHR, art 2. The state was not considered to be under an obligation to prolong M's life.<

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370596183308

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In NHS Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H [2001] 1 All ER 801, for instance, the Family Division of the High Court held that the withdrawal of treatment (through hydration and nutrition) to M, a [...], would not constitute a breach of the ECHR, art 2. The state was not considered to be under an obligation to prolong M's life.

Answer

patient in a persistent vegetative state

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370597756172

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In NHS Trust A v M; NHS Trust B v H [2001] 1 All ER 801, for instance, the Family Division of the High Court held that the withdrawal of treatment (through hydration and nutrition) to M, a patient in a persistent vegetative state, [...]. The state was not considered to be under an obligation to prolong M's life.

Answer

would not constitute a breach of the ECHR, art 2

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370599329036

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Remember that art [...] requires that a person detained in accordance with art 5(1)(c) must 'be brought promptly before a judge'.

Answer

5(3)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Remember that art 5(3) requires that a person detained in accordance with art 5(1)(c) must 'be brought promptly before a judge'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370600901900

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Remember that art 5(3) requires that a person detained in accordance with art 5(1)(c) must '[...]'.

Answer

be brought promptly before a judge

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Remember that art 5(3) requires that a person detained in accordance with art 5(1)(c) must 'be brought promptly before a judge'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370602474764

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article [...] of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'.

Answer

6(3)(c)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370604047628

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence '[...]'.

Answer

to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370606669068

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
tml>Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'. This right, read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1), has seen the ECtHR recognise a right for a suspect to have access to legal advice in the context of police investigation and questioning <html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370608241932

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

a right for a suspect to have access to legal advice in the context of police investigation and questioning

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'. This right, read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1), has seen the ECtHR recognise a right for a suspect to have access to legal advice in the context of police investigation and questioning <body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370609814796

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'. This right, read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1), has seen the ECtHR recognise a right for a suspect to have access to legal advice in the context of police investigation and questioning (see, for example, the Murray case, and note also the Brennan case). Any such right is not absolute but, as the Murray case shows, denial of such access may under certain circumstances be seen to [...].

Answer

interfere with the fairness of the overall, subsequent trial process

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ontext of police investigation and questioning (see, for example, the Murray case, and note also the Brennan case). Any such right is not absolute but, as the Murray case shows, denial of such access may under certain circumstances be seen to interfere with the fairness of the overall, subsequent trial process.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370611387660

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'. This right, read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1), has seen the ECtHR recognise a right for a suspect to have access to legal advice in the context of police investigation and questioning (see, for example, the Murray case, and note also the Brennan case). Any such right is not absolute but, as the Murray case shows, [...] may under certain circumstances be seen to interfere with the fairness of the overall, subsequent trial process.

Answer

denial of such access

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ise a right for a suspect to have access to legal advice in the context of police investigation and questioning (see, for example, the Murray case, and note also the Brennan case). Any such right is not absolute but, as the Murray case shows, denial of such access may under certain circumstances be seen to interfere with the fairness of the overall, subsequent trial process.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370612960524

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR entitles a person charged with a criminal offence 'to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing'. This right, read in conjunction with the ECHR, art 6(1), has seen the ECtHR recognise a right for a suspect to have access to legal advice in the context of police investigation and questioning (see, for example, the Murray case, and note also the Brennan case). Any such right is not absolute but, as the [case] case shows, denial of such access may under certain circumstances be seen to interfere with the fairness of the overall, subsequent trial process.

Answer

Murray

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
en the ECtHR recognise a right for a suspect to have access to legal advice in the context of police investigation and questioning (see, for example, the Murray case, and note also the Brennan case). Any such right is not absolute but, as the Murray case shows, denial of such access may under certain circumstances be seen to interfere with the fairness of the overall, subsequent trial process.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370615319820

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In [case], 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.

Answer

Murray

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370617679116

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Murray, the ECtHR acknowledged the importance of [...] to a fair criminal process as protected through the ECHR, art 6, but it also accepted that the right is not absolute.

Answer

the right to silence

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370619251980

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 [...].

Answer

the right is not absolute

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370620824844

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In [case], the appellants argued before the Supreme Court that they had not received a fair trial when their convictions were based solely, or to a decisive extent, on the hearsay statements of witnesses who they had not had a chance to cross-examine.

Answer

R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
In R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, the appellants argued before the Supreme Court that they had not received a fair trial when their convictions were based solely, or to a decisive extent, on the hearsay statements of w

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370623184140

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, the appellants argued before the Supreme Court that they had not received a fair trial when their convictions were based solely, or to a decisive extent, on [...].

Answer

the hearsay statements of witnesses who they had not had a chance to cross-examine

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370624757004

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness [...] if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.

Answer

does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
erally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370626329868

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if [...].

Answer

accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
irness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370627902732

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in [case]), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.

Answer

Horncastle

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
>A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedur

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370630262028

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is [...]. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.

Answer

generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370631834892

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Article 6 of the ECHR can also be violated when [...].

Answer

there is a breach of the positive obligation on a Convention state to ensure, as far as possible, fair legal process

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

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.

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370633407756

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The right to examine a witness contained in the ECHR, art [...] is based on the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged. A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.

Answer

6(3)(d)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370634980620

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The right to examine a witness contained in the ECHR, art 6(3)(d) is based on the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged. A conviction based [...] is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.

Answer

solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e a witness contained in the ECHR, art 6(3)(d) is based on the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged. A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction ba

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370636553484

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The right to examine a witness contained in the ECHR, art 6(3)(d) is based on the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged. A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is [...]. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.

Answer

generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged. A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370638126348

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The right to examine a witness contained in the ECHR, art 6(3)(d) is based on the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged. A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if [...].

Answer

accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370639699212

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The right to examine a witness contained in the ECHR, art 6(3)(d) is based on the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing so that it can be challenged. A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in [case]), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedural safeguards.

Answer

Horncastle

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
enged. A conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness is generally considered to be incompatible with the requirements of fairness under the ECHR, art 6. However (and taking the same view of the Supreme Court in Horncastle), a conviction based solely or decisively on the statement of an absent witness does not automatically result in a breach of the ECHR, art 6 if accompanied by other very strong procedur

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370642058508

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14

Answer

The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that they had not received a fair trial when their convictions were based solely, or to a decisive extent, on the hearsay statements of witnesses who they had not had a chance to cross-examine. In light of the decision of the ECtHR in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK (2009) 49 EHRR 1, the appellants submitted that their convictions breached the ECHR, art 6(3)(d), which guarantees the right of an accused to cross-examine witnesses at a criminal trial, as well as the ECHR, art 6(1).The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 2(1) it was only required to take into account Strasbourg's jurisprudence, and in this particular case it declined to follow the Chamber's decision in Al-Khawaja (see section 9.2.1 on the Human Rights Act 1998, s 2(1)). 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.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370644417804

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370647039244

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The case of [case] concerned the broad principle of due legal process that someone should be considered innocent until they are proven guilty, though this took place in a civil law context. In this case, allegations of abuse had been made against various NHS employees who were then put on a provisional employment blacklist. The law lords concluded that this practice was a breach of the duty of fairness owed to the individuals, who had not had the opportunity to put representations forward to dispute the allegations made against them.

Answer

R (on the application of Wright and Others) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The case of R (on the application of Wright and Others) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3 concerned the broad principle of due legal process that someone should be considered innocent until they are proven guilty, though this took place in a civil law context. In this case, a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370649398540

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The case of R (on the application of Wright and Others) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3 concerned the broad principle of due legal process that someone should be considered innocent until they are proven guilty, though this took place in a civil law context. In this case, allegations of abuse had been made against various NHS employees who were then put on a provisional employment blacklist. The law lords concluded that [...].

Answer

this practice was a breach of the duty of fairness owed to the individuals, who had not had the opportunity to put representations forward to dispute the allegations made against them

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
until they are proven guilty, though this took place in a civil law context. In this case, allegations of abuse had been made against various NHS employees who were then put on a provisional employment blacklist. The law lords concluded that this practice was a breach of the duty of fairness owed to the individuals, who had not had the opportunity to put representations forward to dispute the allegations made against them.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370650971404

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

R (on the application of Wright and Others) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3

Answer

Allegations of abuse had been made against various NHS employees who were then put on a provisional employment blacklist. The law lords concluded that this practice was a breach of the duty of fairness owed to the individuals, who had not had the opportunity to put representations forward to dispute the allegations made against them.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370653330700

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

R (on the application of Wright and Others) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] UKHL 3

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370655689996

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Murray, the ECtHR acknowledged the importance of [...] 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 by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.

Answer

the right to silence to a fair criminal process

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370657262860

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

In Murray, the ECtHR acknowledged the importance of the right to silence to a fair criminal process as protected through the ECHR, art [...], 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 by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.

Answer

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370658835724

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 [...] had been violated because of the denial of access by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.

Answer

6(1) read with art 6(3)(c)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ted 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 by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences coul

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370660408588

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 [...] for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.

Answer

the denial of access by Murray to legal advice

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e 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 by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370661981452

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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 by Murray to legal advice for the [...] he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.

Answer

first 48 hours

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ong 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 by Murray to legal advice for the first 48 hours he was detained and questioned by police in circumstances where adverse inferences could be drawn from his silence.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370663554316

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Whether such orders do in fact engage the ECHR, art 5 depends on [...], as this is ultimately for the courts and not for the government to determine. No hard or fast rule emerges from the case law, but a general approach has been developed based on the earlier case of Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

Answer

the extent of the measures actually taken

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Whether such orders do in fact engage the ECHR, art 5 depends on the extent of the measures actually taken, as this is ultimately for the courts and not for the government to determine. No hard or fast rule emerges from the case law, but a general approach has been developed based on the ear

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370665127180

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Whether such orders do in fact engage the ECHR, art 5 depends on the extent of the measures actually taken, as [...]. No hard or fast rule emerges from the case law, but a general approach has been developed based on the earlier case of Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333. This concerned restrictions imposed on an individual by the Italian authorities analogous to some of those contained in the UK’s non-derogating control orders. Mr Guzzardi, an alleged 'mafioso', who was described by the Italian authorities as 'one of the most dangerous' of individuals, had been confined to an area on a small island constituting about 2½km² for 16 months. It contained a basic village inhabited by others subject to similar orders. His family was able to live with him and he was allowed to look for work. He had to report to the police twice a day and had to get permission from the police before making a phone call or seeing a visitor. This situation was compared by the ECtHR to that of a person in an open prison.

Answer

this is ultimately for the courts and not for the government to determine

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370667748620

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Whether such orders do in fact engage the ECHR, art 5 depends on the extent of the measures actually taken, as this is ultimately for the courts and not for the government to determine. No hard or fast rule emerges from the case law, but a general approach has been developed based on the earlier case of [case].

Answer

Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
on the extent of the measures actually taken, as this is ultimately for the courts and not for the government to determine. No hard or fast rule emerges from the case law, but a general approach has been developed based on the earlier case of Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370670107916

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

the extent of the measures actually taken

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370671680780

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

this is ultimately for the courts and not for the government to determine

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370674040076

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

A detention may be lawful where someone is imprisoned pursuant to the lawful sentence of a properly constituted court or, for instance, detained in hospital according to procedures laid down in the [statute]. Legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), allows for arrest and detention of persons suspected of certain crimes.

Answer

Mental Health Act 1983

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370676399372

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

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

Answer

1983

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
d><head>A detention may be lawful where someone is imprisoned pursuant to the lawful sentence of a properly constituted court or, for instance, detained in hospital according to procedures laid down in the Mental Health Act 1983. Legislation, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), allows for arrest and detention of persons suspected of certain crimes.<html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370679020812

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157

Answer

Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157 Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, befor

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370681380108

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370683739404

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that [...] and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.

Answer

the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox pr

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370685312268

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article [...] if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.

Answer

5(1)(c)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
e 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion t

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370686885132

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if [...] and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.

Answer

the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox pr

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370688457996

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and [...]. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.

Answer

the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
y point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370690030860

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157
Facts: Under terrorist legislation operating in Northern Ireland it was only necessary for the police to demonstrate ‘suspicion’ rather than the more normal ‘reasonable suspicion’, before an arrest could be brought about. The question was whether this involved a violation of Article 5. A second issue was whether or not persons so detained needed to be told directly why they had been arrested, or whether it was sufficient under Article 5(2) that they be able to ascertain this based upon the types of questions being asked. The key point to take from this case is that the Article 5(1) right to liberty can only be denied in the context of an arrest in accordance with Article 5(1)(c) if the arrest has been carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and the state is able to show some objectively verifiable evidence on which to justify its suspicion that an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in [...]. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.

Answer

a non-absolute, proportionate way

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
hat an individual has committed an offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspect

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370691603724

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.

Answer

Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK (1990) 13 EHRR 157

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
offence or is about to do so. Additionally Fox provides an important authority qualifying the protection afforded by Article 5(2). As elsewhere in the Convention, the wording of Articles will be construed in a non-absolute, proportionate way. Even if suspects are not specifically informed of the technical offence they are suspected of, there is unlikely to be a breach of Article 5(2) if the nature and essence of the suspected offence becomes apparent during questioning.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370694749452

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Murray (John) v UK (1996 ) 22 EHRR 29

Answer

Facts: Murray was arrested, detained and later convicted of a terrorism-related offence in Northern Ireland. For the first 48 hours of his detention he had been denied access to legal advice and, on conviction, he was told that adverse inferences had been drawn from his refusal to answer police questions after his arrest. Murray complained to the Strasbourg Court that the combination of lack of legal advice and the drawing of the inferences by the criminal court had deprived him of a fair trial and legal process.
The findings in this case reveal some important features about the nature of Article 6 protection and the application of the proportionality test in this area. Even though the applicant strongly argued that the drawing of adverse inferences was in itself contrary to the spirit of Article 6(2) in particular, the court did not look at his claim in this absolutist way. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that in the particular circumstances there was, especially as the applicant had been cautioned at the start of the process about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The court clearly thought that this applicant and criminal defendants generally are particularly vulnerable to possible abuse of process at this early stage and found that there had been a breach of Article 6(1) taken together with Article 6(3)(c) in these circumstances, irrespective of how a lawyer may have advised in the first place.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Murray (John) v UK (1996 ) 22 EHRR 29 Facts: Murray was arrested, detained and later convicted of a terrorism-related offence in Northern Ireland. For the first 48 hours of his detention he had been denied access to legal ad

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370697108748

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Murray (John) v UK (1996 ) 22 EHRR 29

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370699468044

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Murray (John) v UK (1996 ) 22 EHRR 29
Facts: Murray was arrested, detained and later convicted of a terrorism-related offence in Northern Ireland. For the first 48 hours of his detention he had been denied access to legal advice and, on conviction, he was told that adverse inferences had been drawn from his refusal to answer police questions after his arrest. Murray complained to the Strasbourg Court that the combination of lack of legal advice and the drawing of the inferences by the criminal court had deprived him of a fair trial and legal process.
The findings in this case reveal some important features about the nature of Article 6 protection and the application of the proportionality test in this area. Even though the applicant strongly argued that the drawing of adverse inferences was in itself contrary to the spirit of Article 6(2) in particular, the court did not look at his claim in this absolutist way. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that [...]. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The court clearly thought that this applicant and criminal defendants generally are particularly vulnerable to possible abuse of process at this early stage and found that there had been a breach of Article 6(1) taken together with Article 6(3)(c) in these circumstances, irrespective of how a lawyer may have advised in the first place.

Answer

in the particular circumstances there was, especially as the applicant had been cautioned at the start of the process about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
the court did not look at his claim in this absolutist way. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that in the particular circumstances there was, especially as the applicant had been cautioned at the start of the process about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370701040908

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Murray (John) v UK (1996 ) 22 EHRR 29
Facts: Murray was arrested, detained and later convicted of a terrorism-related offence in Northern Ireland. For the first 48 hours of his detention he had been denied access to legal advice and, on conviction, he was told that adverse inferences had been drawn from his refusal to answer police questions after his arrest. Murray complained to the Strasbourg Court that the combination of lack of legal advice and the drawing of the inferences by the criminal court had deprived him of a fair trial and legal process.
The findings in this case reveal some important features about the nature of Article 6 protection and the application of the proportionality test in this area. Even though the applicant strongly argued that the drawing of adverse inferences was in itself contrary to the spirit of Article 6(2) in particular, the court did not look at his claim in this absolutist way. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that in the particular circumstances there was, especially as [...]. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The court clearly thought that this applicant and criminal defendants generally are particularly vulnerable to possible abuse of process at this early stage and found that there had been a breach of Article 6(1) taken together with Article 6(3)(c) in these circumstances, irrespective of how a lawyer may have advised in the first place.

Answer

the applicant had been cautioned at the start of the process about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
y. Instead the judges assessed whether there was a justification, permitted by the law, for partial restriction of the ‘right’ to silence and against self-incrimination and decided that in the particular circumstances there was, especially as the applicant had been cautioned at the start of the process about the possibility of adverse inferences being drawn. However, the applicant was successful in his claim relating to the restriction of access to legal advice in the very important first stage of the criminal process following arrest. The

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370702613772

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313

Answer

Facts: Ernest Saunder, the former Chief Executive of Guinness plc, was investigated by Inspectors from the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to allegations of misconduct relating to Guinness’s proposed takeover of another company. The evidence obtained in this investigation was subsequently used as part of the prosecution case against Saunders when he was subsequently tried and convicted of offences relating to false accounting, conspiracy and theft. He later took his case to Strasbourg alleging that he had been obliged to incriminate himself, and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key point to take from Saunders is that it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances and so a proportionality test was applied. However, in this particular case, the UK Government’s argument that such a practice was justified in the fight against corporate fraud was not ultimately persuasive.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313 Facts: Ernest Saunder, the former Chief Executive of Guinness plc, was investigated by Inspectors from the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to allegations of misco

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370704973068

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370707332364

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313
Facts: Ernest Saunder, the former Chief Executive of Guinness plc, was investigated by Inspectors from the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to allegations of misconduct relating to Guinness’s proposed takeover of another company. The evidence obtained in this investigation was subsequently used as part of the prosecution case against Saunders when he was subsequently tried and convicted of offences relating to false accounting, conspiracy and theft. He later took his case to Strasbourg alleging that [...], and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key point to take from Saunders is that it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances and so a proportionality test was applied. However, in this particular case, the UK Government’s argument that such a practice was justified in the fight against corporate fraud was not ultimately persuasive.

Answer

he had been obliged to incriminate himself

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
vestigation was subsequently used as part of the prosecution case against Saunders when he was subsequently tried and convicted of offences relating to false accounting, conspiracy and theft. He later took his case to Strasbourg alleging that he had been obliged to incriminate himself, and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key p

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370708905228

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313
Facts: Ernest Saunder, the former Chief Executive of Guinness plc, was investigated by Inspectors from the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to allegations of misconduct relating to Guinness’s proposed takeover of another company. The evidence obtained in this investigation was subsequently used as part of the prosecution case against Saunders when he was subsequently tried and convicted of offences relating to false accounting, conspiracy and theft. He later took his case to Strasbourg alleging that he had been obliged to incriminate himself, and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key point to take from Saunders is that [...]. The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances and so a proportionality test was applied. However, in this particular case, the UK Government’s argument that such a practice was justified in the fight against corporate fraud was not ultimately persuasive.

Answer

it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
to incriminate himself, and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key point to take from Saunders is that it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370710478092

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313
Facts: Ernest Saunder, the former Chief Executive of Guinness plc, was investigated by Inspectors from the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to allegations of misconduct relating to Guinness’s proposed takeover of another company. The evidence obtained in this investigation was subsequently used as part of the prosecution case against Saunders when he was subsequently tried and convicted of offences relating to false accounting, conspiracy and theft. He later took his case to Strasbourg alleging that he had been obliged to incriminate himself, and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key point to take from Saunders is that it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements [...], and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances and so a proportionality test was applied. However, in this particular case, the UK Government’s argument that such a practice was justified in the fight against corporate fraud was not ultimately persuasive.

Answer

had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
from Saunders is that it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370712050956

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313
Facts: Ernest Saunder, the former Chief Executive of Guinness plc, was investigated by Inspectors from the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to allegations of misconduct relating to Guinness’s proposed takeover of another company. The evidence obtained in this investigation was subsequently used as part of the prosecution case against Saunders when he was subsequently tried and convicted of offences relating to false accounting, conspiracy and theft. He later took his case to Strasbourg alleging that he had been obliged to incriminate himself, and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key point to take from Saunders is that it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and [...], whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances and so a proportionality test was applied. However, in this particular case, the UK Government’s argument that such a practice was justified in the fight against corporate fraud was not ultimately persuasive.

Answer

that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
en obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances an

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370713623820

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 313
Facts: Ernest Saunder, the former Chief Executive of Guinness plc, was investigated by Inspectors from the then Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in relation to allegations of misconduct relating to Guinness’s proposed takeover of another company. The evidence obtained in this investigation was subsequently used as part of the prosecution case against Saunders when he was subsequently tried and convicted of offences relating to false accounting, conspiracy and theft. He later took his case to Strasbourg alleging that he had been obliged to incriminate himself, and that use at his trial of statements he had had to make to the DTI inspectors under their compulsory powers deprived him of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6(1). The key point to take from Saunders is that it was the use of the statements, which he had earlier been obliged to make to the DTI inspectors, as evidence in the criminal trial which prompted the Strasbourg court to declare a breach of Article 6(1). The statements had been adduced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that [...]. However, in this particular case, the UK Government’s argument that such a practice was justified in the fight against corporate fraud was not ultimately persuasive.

Answer

use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances and so a proportionality test was applied

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
duced in a way that suggested that Saunders had been dishonest, and that was sufficient to have tainted the legal process, whether or not the statements had actually contained an admission of guilt. Significantly, the court did recognise that use of such evidence could be justified in some circumstances and so a proportionality test was applied. However, in this particular case, the UK Government’s argument that such a practice was justified in the fight against corporate fraud was not ultimately persuasive.</bod

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370715196684

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Once the court decided there had been a deprivation of liberty, it then considered in detail if any of the limitations in the ECHR, art 5(1)(a) to (f) might apply. None were found to. In relation to the ECHR, art 5(1)(c) in particular it noted that, while the argument that the measures were taken because they were 'reasonably considered necessary to prevent [Mr Guzzardi] committing an offence' might seem applicable, it could not succeed, because:

'… [...]; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing a concrete and specific offence.'

Answer

the phrase under examination is not adapted to a policy of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
particular it noted that, while the argument that the measures were taken because they were 'reasonably considered necessary to prevent [Mr Guzzardi] committing an offence' might seem applicable, it could not succeed, because: '… the phrase under examination is not adapted to a policy of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing a concrete and specific offence.' <body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370716769548

Tags

#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

'… the phrase under examination is not adapted to a policy of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing [...].'

Answer

a concrete and specific offence

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
of general prevention directed against an individual or a category of individuals who, like mafiosi, present a danger on account of their continuing propensity to crime; it does no more than afford the Contracting States a means of preventing a concrete and specific offence.' <body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370718342412

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25

Answer

Facts: the British government had introduced detention without trial in Northern Ireland. This directly infringed the key principle in Article 5, for which a derogation had been lodged (under Article 15). The more important aspect of the case for present purposes was that, while subject to detention, individuals were subjected to the so-called ‘five techniques’, which included wall-standing, hooding and deprivation of sleep and food. The case was about whether these interrogation practices engaged Article 3, and if so, whether they amounted to torture or the less serious variant of inhuman and degrading treatment. (Note that it is not possible for a state to derogate from either Article 3 or 2.) It is notable in this case that the distinction made by the Strasbourg Court between torture and a lesser breach of Article 3 was that the former, in order to meet the high threshold and ‘special stigma’ implicit in the term, had to involve an ‘aggravated and deliberate’ form of treatment causing ‘serious and cruel suffering’. There appears also to have been some differentiation between infliction of actual bodily injury and of psychological pressure and humiliation, though it is arguable that a more modern assessment of these types of interrogation technique would take a stricter approach with regard to the psychological impact on detainees.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
The Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25 Facts: the British government had introduced detention without trial in Northern Ireland. This directly infringed the key principle in Article 5, for which a derogation had been lodged (

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370721750284

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

The Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370724633868

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

The Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25
Facts: the British government had introduced detention without trial in Northern Ireland. This directly infringed the key principle in Article 5, for which a derogation had been lodged (under Article 15). The more important aspect of the case for present purposes was that, while subject to detention, individuals were subjected to the so-called ‘five techniques’, which included wall-standing, hooding and deprivation of sleep and food. The case was about whether these interrogation practices engaged Article 3, and if so, whether they amounted to torture or the less serious variant of inhuman and degrading treatment. (Note that it is not possible for a state to derogate from either Article 3 or 2.) It is notable in this case that the distinction made by the Strasbourg Court between torture and a lesser breach of Article 3 was that the former, in order to meet the high threshold and ‘special stigma’ implicit in the term, had to involve an [...]. There appears also to have been some differentiation between infliction of actual bodily injury and of psychological pressure and humiliation, though it is arguable that a more modern assessment of these types of interrogation technique would take a stricter approach with regard to the psychological impact on detainees.

Answer

‘aggravated and deliberate’ form of treatment causing ‘serious and cruel suffering’

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
t is notable in this case that the distinction made by the Strasbourg Court between torture and a lesser breach of Article 3 was that the former, in order to meet the high threshold and ‘special stigma’ implicit in the term, had to involve an ‘aggravated and deliberate’ form of treatment causing ‘serious and cruel suffering’. There appears also to have been some differentiation between infliction of actual bodily injury and of psychological pressure and humiliation, though it is arguable that a more modern

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370726206732

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97

Answer

Facts: The applicants were relatives of three alleged Provisional IRA terrorists who had been killed by British military personnel (members of the SAS) in Gibraltar. The UK Government’s position was that the killings, which had been carried out with little in the way of warning or concerted attempt to capture the individuals alive, was a proportionate response to the intelligence assessment which indicated that the individuals were about to explode a bomb, threatening serious loss of life. The case was critical in establishing that, when the state takes the life of individuals, an adequate investigation must be carried out. This is a very important, secondary obligation inherent within Article 2. If the investigation discloses serious errors in training, command and control, then that also will disclose a violation of the more substantive element of Article 2, namely the lawfulness of the killing in the first place.

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97 Facts: The applicants were relatives of three alleged Provisional IRA terrorists who had been killed by British military personnel (members of the SAS) in Gibraltar. The UK Government’s

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370728566028

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

Answer

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370730925324

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97
Facts: The applicants were relatives of three alleged Provisional IRA terrorists who had been killed by British military personnel (members of the SAS) in Gibraltar. The UK Government’s position was that the killings, which had been carried out with little in the way of warning or concerted attempt to capture the individuals alive, was [...]. The case was critical in establishing that, when the state takes the life of individuals, an adequate investigation must be carried out. This is a very important, secondary obligation inherent within Article 2. If the investigation discloses serious errors in training, command and control, then that also will disclose a violation of the more substantive element of Article 2, namely the lawfulness of the killing in the first place.

Answer

a proportionate response to the intelligence assessment which indicated that the individuals were about to explode a bomb, threatening serious loss of life

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
illed by British military personnel (members of the SAS) in Gibraltar. The UK Government’s position was that the killings, which had been carried out with little in the way of warning or concerted attempt to capture the individuals alive, was a proportionate response to the intelligence assessment which indicated that the individuals were about to explode a bomb, threatening serious loss of life. The case was critical in establishing that, when the state takes the life of individuals, an adequate investigation must be carried out. This is a very important, secondary obligation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370732498188

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97
Facts: The applicants were relatives of three alleged Provisional IRA terrorists who had been killed by British military personnel (members of the SAS) in Gibraltar. The UK Government’s position was that the killings, which had been carried out with little in the way of warning or concerted attempt to capture the individuals alive, was a proportionate response to the intelligence assessment which indicated that the individuals were about to explode a bomb, threatening serious loss of life. The case was critical in establishing that, when the state takes the life of individuals, [...]. This is a very important, secondary obligation inherent within Article 2. If the investigation discloses serious errors in training, command and control, then that also will disclose a violation of the more substantive element of Article 2, namely the lawfulness of the killing in the first place.

Answer

an adequate investigation must be carried out

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
oportionate response to the intelligence assessment which indicated that the individuals were about to explode a bomb, threatening serious loss of life. The case was critical in establishing that, when the state takes the life of individuals, an adequate investigation must be carried out. This is a very important, secondary obligation inherent within Article 2. If the investigation discloses serious errors in training, command and control, then that also will disclose a

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370734071052

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97
Facts: The applicants were relatives of three alleged Provisional IRA terrorists who had been killed by British military personnel (members of the SAS) in Gibraltar. The UK Government’s position was that the killings, which had been carried out with little in the way of warning or concerted attempt to capture the individuals alive, was a proportionate response to the intelligence assessment which indicated that the individuals were about to explode a bomb, threatening serious loss of life. The case was critical in establishing that, when the state takes the life of individuals, an adequate investigation must be carried out. This is a very important, secondary obligation inherent within Article 2. If [...], then that also will disclose a violation of the more substantive element of Article 2, namely the lawfulness of the killing in the first place.

Answer

the investigation discloses serious errors in training, command and control

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
tening serious loss of life. The case was critical in establishing that, when the state takes the life of individuals, an adequate investigation must be carried out. This is a very important, secondary obligation inherent within Article 2. If the investigation discloses serious errors in training, command and control, then that also will disclose a violation of the more substantive element of Article 2, namely the lawfulness of the killing in the first place.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370735643916

Tags

#cases #freedom-of-person #human-rights #public

Question

McCann, Farrell and Savage v UK (1996) 21 EHRR 97
Facts: The applicants were relatives of three alleged Provisional IRA terrorists who had been killed by British military personnel (members of the SAS) in Gibraltar. The UK Government’s position was that the killings, which had been carried out with little in the way of warning or concerted attempt to capture the individuals alive, was a proportionate response to the intelligence assessment which indicated that the individuals were about to explode a bomb, threatening serious loss of life. The case was critical in establishing that, when the state takes the life of individuals, an adequate investigation must be carried out. This is a very important, secondary obligation inherent within Article 2. If the investigation discloses serious errors in training, command and control, then [...].

Answer

that also will disclose a violation of the more substantive element of Article 2, namely the lawfulness of the killing in the first place

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
state takes the life of individuals, an adequate investigation must be carried out. This is a very important, secondary obligation inherent within Article 2. If the investigation discloses serious errors in training, command and control, then that also will disclose a violation of the more substantive element of Article 2, namely the lawfulness of the killing in the first place.<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370741411084

Tags

#hra #law #public

Question

a public authority will not breach the obligation imposed by the HRA 1998, s 6(1), if it is required by primary legislation to so act

Answer

HRA 1998, s 6(2)(a)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
However, a public authority will not breach the obligation imposed by the HRA 1998, s 6(1), if: (a) it is required by primary legislation to so act: HRA 1998, s 6(2)(a), or (b) it is acting so as to give effect to or enforce incompatible primary or subordinate legislation: HRA 1998, s 6(2)(b).

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Flashcard 1370743770380

Tags

#hra #law #public

Question

However, a public authority will not breach the obligation imposed by the HRA 1998, s 6(1), if it is acting so as to give effect to or enforce incompatible primary or subordinate legislation

Answer

HRA 1998, s 6(2)(b)

status	not learned	measured difficulty	37% [default]	last interval [days]
repetition number in this series	0	memorised on		scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval		last repetition or drill

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ch the obligation imposed by the HRA 1998, s 6(1), if: (a) it is required by primary legislation to so act: HRA 1998, s 6(2)(a), or (b) it is acting so as to give effect to or enforce incompatible primary or subordinate legislation: HRA 1998, s 6(2)(b).<body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Edited, memorised or added to reading queue

on 22-Jul-2016 (Fri)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Original toplevel document (pdf)