R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet - significado y definición. Qué es R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet
Diclib.com
Diccionario ChatGPT
Ingrese una palabra o frase en cualquier idioma 👆
Idioma:

Traducción y análisis de palabras por inteligencia artificial ChatGPT

En esta página puede obtener un análisis detallado de una palabra o frase, producido utilizando la mejor tecnología de inteligencia artificial hasta la fecha:

  • cómo se usa la palabra
  • frecuencia de uso
  • se utiliza con más frecuencia en el habla oral o escrita
  • opciones de traducción
  • ejemplos de uso (varias frases con traducción)
  • etimología

Qué (quién) es R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet - definición


R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet         
R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain. They have proven to be of landmark significance in international criminal law and human rights law.
R v Registrar General, ex p Segerdal         
  • The Royal Courts of Justice, where the case was heard
R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal and another was a court case heard by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, which was instrumental in determining whether the Church of Scientology was to be considered a bona fide religion in England and Wales, and by extension what defines a religion in English law. The case, heard in 1969–70, focused on the question of whether a chapel at the Scientologists' UK headquarters should be registered as a meeting place for religious worship under an 1855 law.
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy         
R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision.