奥斯本诉假释委员会[2013]UKSC 61,最高法院

T. Webb
{"title":"奥斯本诉假释委员会[2013]UKSC 61,最高法院","authors":"T. Webb","doi":"10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0025","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 Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This case note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.","PeriodicalId":299991,"journal":{"name":"Essential Cases: Public Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court\",\"authors\":\"T. Webb\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0025\",\"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 Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This case note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.\",\"PeriodicalId\":299991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Essential Cases: Public Law\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Essential Cases: Public Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Essential Cases: Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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。本案例文件总结了奥斯本诉假释委员会[2013]UKSC 61,最高法院的事实和判决。该案件涉及三名申请人,他们认为,假释委员会的程序不公平。他们在为自己的案件辩护时,主要依据的是《欧洲人权公约》第5(4)条。英国最高法院更倾向于普通法的程序公平原则。本案例说明在与《欧洲人权公约》和《1998年人权法》的关系中更广泛地考察了这一原则和普通法权利的概念。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。
Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court
Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, Supreme Court. This case concerned three applicants who, it was contended, had been subject to procedurally unfair processes by the Parole Board. In arguing their cases they had primarily relied upon Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The UKSC preferred the common law principle of procedural fairness. This case note examines that principle and the concept of common law rights more generally in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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