Click the case name for better results:

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Regina v Croydon Justices Ex Parte Morgan: QBD 2 Dec 1996

Justices validly required security for costs from legally aided applicant to state case. Citations: Times 02-Dec-1996 Statutes: Magistrates Courts Act 1980 114 Litigation Practice Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86488

Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 11 Nov 2015

‘The issue in the case is whether the words ‘the said sum . . as was due at the time the period of detention was imposed’ in section 79(2) of the Magistrates’ Court Act (MCA) 1980 should be construed in the case of confiscation orders made under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (DTA) as meaning … Continue reading Gibson, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 11 Nov 2015

Musone v Regina: CACD 23 May 2007

A serving prisoner was stabbed to death in his cell. The appellant admitted that he had punched the victim twice but maintained that another man had stabbed him, which explained the incriminating presence of the victim’s blood in the vicinity of the appellant’s cell and on his hand. As the victim lay dying, he uttered, … Continue reading Musone v Regina: CACD 23 May 2007

Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 29 Apr 2004

The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely serious failure to adhere to the rule of law with regard to the … Continue reading Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: HL 29 Apr 2004

Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 11 Feb 1999

The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .