R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley)
Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Jill Sutherland [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2015 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: The criminal law review - London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954, (2015), 5, Seite 352 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
year:2015 ; number:5 ; pages:352 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC1964545692 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a2200265 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC1964545692 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230714162542.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a PQ20160617 |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC1964545692 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692 | ||
| 035 | |a (PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670 | ||
| 035 | |a (KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 340 |q DNB |
| 084 | |a INTRECHT |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Jill Sutherland |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2015 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Court decisions | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Criminal procedure | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Appeals | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Criminal sentences | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Paul Taylor |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The criminal law review |d London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954 |g (2015), 5, Seite 352 |w (DE-627)168200694 |w (DE-600)702179-3 |w (DE-576)015943658 |x 0011-135X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2015 |g number:5 |g pages:352 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-INTRECHT | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-JUR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_184 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2041 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2015 |e 5 |h 352 | ||
| author_variant |
j s js |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:0011135X:2015----::vryenvilyonvrwodakvars |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2015 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| allfields |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964545692 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692 (PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670 (KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB INTRECHT fid Jill Sutherland verfasserin aut R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. Court decisions Criminal procedure Appeals Criminal sentences Paul Taylor oth Enthalten in The criminal law review London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954 (2015), 5, Seite 352 (DE-627)168200694 (DE-600)702179-3 (DE-576)015943658 0011-135X nnns year:2015 number:5 pages:352 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 2015 5 352 |
| spelling |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964545692 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692 (PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670 (KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB INTRECHT fid Jill Sutherland verfasserin aut R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. Court decisions Criminal procedure Appeals Criminal sentences Paul Taylor oth Enthalten in The criminal law review London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954 (2015), 5, Seite 352 (DE-627)168200694 (DE-600)702179-3 (DE-576)015943658 0011-135X nnns year:2015 number:5 pages:352 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 2015 5 352 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964545692 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692 (PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670 (KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB INTRECHT fid Jill Sutherland verfasserin aut R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. Court decisions Criminal procedure Appeals Criminal sentences Paul Taylor oth Enthalten in The criminal law review London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954 (2015), 5, Seite 352 (DE-627)168200694 (DE-600)702179-3 (DE-576)015943658 0011-135X nnns year:2015 number:5 pages:352 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 2015 5 352 |
| allfieldsGer |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964545692 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692 (PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670 (KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB INTRECHT fid Jill Sutherland verfasserin aut R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. Court decisions Criminal procedure Appeals Criminal sentences Paul Taylor oth Enthalten in The criminal law review London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954 (2015), 5, Seite 352 (DE-627)168200694 (DE-600)702179-3 (DE-576)015943658 0011-135X nnns year:2015 number:5 pages:352 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 2015 5 352 |
| allfieldsSound |
PQ20160617 (DE-627)OLC1964545692 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692 (PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670 (KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DNB INTRECHT fid Jill Sutherland verfasserin aut R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) 2015 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. Court decisions Criminal procedure Appeals Criminal sentences Paul Taylor oth Enthalten in The criminal law review London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954 (2015), 5, Seite 352 (DE-627)168200694 (DE-600)702179-3 (DE-576)015943658 0011-135X nnns year:2015 number:5 pages:352 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4306 AR 2015 5 352 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in The criminal law review (2015), 5, Seite 352 year:2015 number:5 pages:352 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in The criminal law review (2015), 5, Seite 352 year:2015 number:5 pages:352 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Court decisions Criminal procedure Appeals Criminal sentences |
| dewey-raw |
340 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
The criminal law review |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Jill Sutherland @@aut@@ Paul Taylor @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2015-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
168200694 |
| dewey-sort |
3340 |
| id |
OLC1964545692 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1964545692</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230714162542.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1964545692</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">INTRECHT</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jill Sutherland</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Court decisions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminal procedure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Appeals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminal sentences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Taylor</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The criminal law review</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954</subfield><subfield code="g">(2015), 5, Seite 352</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)168200694</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)702179-3</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015943658</subfield><subfield code="x">0011-135X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:352</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-INTRECHT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_184</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="h">352</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Jill Sutherland |
| spellingShingle |
Jill Sutherland ddc 340 fid INTRECHT misc Court decisions misc Criminal procedure misc Appeals misc Criminal sentences R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) |
| authorStr |
Jill Sutherland |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)168200694 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
340 - Law |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0011-135X |
| topic_title |
340 DNB INTRECHT fid R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) Court decisions Criminal procedure Appeals Criminal sentences |
| topic |
ddc 340 fid INTRECHT misc Court decisions misc Criminal procedure misc Appeals misc Criminal sentences |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 340 fid INTRECHT misc Court decisions misc Criminal procedure misc Appeals misc Criminal sentences |
| topic_browse |
ddc 340 fid INTRECHT misc Court decisions misc Criminal procedure misc Appeals misc Criminal sentences |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| author2_variant |
p t pt |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
The criminal law review |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
168200694 |
| dewey-tens |
340 - Law |
| hierarchy_top_title |
The criminal law review |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)168200694 (DE-600)702179-3 (DE-576)015943658 |
| title |
R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC1964545692 (DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692 (PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670 (KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr |
| title_full |
R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) |
| author_sort |
Jill Sutherland |
| journal |
The criminal law review |
| journalStr |
The criminal law review |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
352 |
| author_browse |
Jill Sutherland |
| class |
340 DNB INTRECHT fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Jill Sutherland |
| dewey-full |
340 |
| title_sort |
r. v gray (dean); r. v ridley (john); r. v crawford (mark); r. v harris (nigel); r. v udu (ashley) |
| title_auth |
R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) |
| abstract |
Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. |
| abstractGer |
Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-INTRECHT SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_184 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_4306 |
| container_issue |
5 |
| title_short |
R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley) |
| url |
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Paul Taylor |
| author2Str |
Paul Taylor |
| ppnlink |
168200694 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T14:21:58.564Z |
| _version_ |
1803568040969764864 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1964545692</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230714162542.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">160206s2015 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20160617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1964545692</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1964545692</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)p517-b88fa8a2a23367761731543d1bda08541ae5906800f3b55ca6666cfc5cb2c3670</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0032121420150000000000500352rvgraydeanrvridleyjohnrvcrawfordmarkrvharrisnigelr</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">DNB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">INTRECHT</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jill Sutherland</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R. v Gray (Dean); R. v Ridley (John); R. v Crawford (Mark); R. v Harris (Nigel); R. v Udu (Ashley)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sutherland and Taylor comment on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gray (Dean), R. v. Ridley (John), R. v. Crawford (Mark), R. v. Harris (Nigel) and R. v. Udu (Ashley) cases. Whilst the loss of time order procedure has been held to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights arts 5 and 6 in Monell v. United Kingdom (1988) 10 E.H.R.R. 205, the way in which the Court of Appeal currently exercises this discretionary power raises several questions. It is the issue of proportionality that warrants a closer analysis in the context of the Court of Appeal's current approach. The order is clearly a penalty or punishment for continuing with an application that has been deemed by the single judge to be unmeritorious and which is hampering the appeals system generally. The length of the order must be proportionate to this wrong. It is also arguable that it must be proportionate to the length of the original sentence and not an apparently arbitrary figure, applied irrespective of the impact on the individual offender.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Court decisions</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminal procedure</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Appeals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Criminal sentences</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Taylor</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The criminal law review</subfield><subfield code="d">London : Thomson / Sweet & Maxwell, 1954</subfield><subfield code="g">(2015), 5, Seite 352</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)168200694</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)702179-3</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015943658</subfield><subfield code="x">0011-135X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">year:2015</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:352</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1679038817</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-INTRECHT</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_184</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="j">2015</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="h">352</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399008 |