n Guerra v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 357, toxic emissions from a factory injured many nearby residents and killed some. The ECtHR found that the absence of information on the effects of living near the factory breached the Applicants’ right to respect for home under Article 8 of the Convention.
It is an obligation of an advocate, in cross-examination, to convey to the witness the evidence the advocate intends to adduce to rebut the evidence of the witness. This is called “putting” the case to the witness. The witness will have the presumed opportunity to comment on the “case” of the advocate’s witnesses.
Few people know the source or sources of the ideas they use to prop up their speech, not to speak of their lives. To take everything they might say as defining them perfectly is just wrong.
n Ireland, we have not introduced provision for injured persons to claim against the insurers of the malfeasor who caused the loss. This provision is available in the UK and, it would appear from Knight v Axa, France.
Shakespeare had been a lodger in the Mountjoy household in 1604. Belott was the Mountjoy apprentice. How he found time to act as matchmaker is a mystery; perhaps his involvement consisted of a conversation over an evening meal after his return from the theatre.
This blog is settled in the view that the current fashion of requiring minimal discovery of records/documentation in the course of litigation is mistaken.
What has been happening in Ireland, after all in the case of the McCracken, Moriarty, Mahon, and Morris Tribunals, but the investigation of criminal conspiracies?
My post on audio recordings in Garda custody is about establishing the grounds for the making of adverse inferences at trial, not about the procedure for interrogation in Garda custody. Under Section 19A of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (as inserted by Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007), it is open to a court to make an adverse inference (of guilt; what else?) arising from …the failure of an accused to mention… [“…any fact relied on in his […]
Firstly, the Planning and Development Act 2000 places no express obligation on the prosecution to prove that the “development” is unauthorised. Development, whether of use or of works, is not unauthorised unless it post-dates 1st October 1964.
In considering the requirements of a driver accused of drink driving offences the Supreme Court has decided that the words: require the person to provide, by exhaling into an apparatus for determining the concentration of alcohol in the breath, 2 specimens of his breath and may indicate the manner in which he is to comply with the requirement” mean that a person need only, on request by a Garda officer, provide two specimens of his/her breath and need not supply […]