R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court

T. Webb
{"title":"R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court. This case addressed a further challenge to the rules against prisoner voting (see Hirst), and considered the limits of the courts’ role in relation to legislation deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Here the court was sceptical of the value of making a further declaration of incompatibility in an area where such declarations had already been made. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Essential Cases: Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191842832.003.0034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63, Supreme Court. This case addressed a further challenge to the rules against prisoner voting (see Hirst), and considered the limits of the courts’ role in relation to legislation deemed incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Here the court was sceptical of the value of making a further declaration of incompatibility in an area where such declarations had already been made. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
R(关于Chester的申请)诉司法国务秘书[2013]UKSC 63,最高法院
关键案例:公法在课程教材和关键案例判决之间架起了一座桥梁。本案例文件总结了R(关于Chester诉国务大臣司法[2013]UKSC 63,最高法院的申请)中的事实和决定。此案进一步挑战了禁止囚犯投票的规则(见赫斯特),并考虑了法院在与1998年《人权法案》不相容的立法方面的作用局限性。在这一点上,法院对在已经作出这种声明的地区进一步作出不相容声明的价值表示怀疑。该文件还包括作者托马斯·韦伯的支持性评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信