Artwork

A tartalmat a Daniel Bates and Cambridge University biztosítja. Az összes podcast-tartalmat, beleértve az epizódokat, grafikákat és podcast-leírásokat, közvetlenül a Daniel Bates and Cambridge University vagy a podcast platform partnere tölti fel és biztosítja. Ha úgy gondolja, hogy valaki az Ön engedélye nélkül használja fel a szerzői joggal védett művét, kövesse az itt leírt folyamatot https://hu.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast alkalmazás
Lépjen offline állapotba az Player FM alkalmazással!

'R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal': CPL Discussion - Mark Elliott and Alison Young

58:30
 
Megosztás
 

Fetch error

Hmmm there seems to be a problem fetching this series right now. Last successful fetch was on January 16, 2025 15:36 (18h ago)

What now? This series will be checked again in the next day. If you believe it should be working, please verify the publisher's feed link below is valid and includes actual episode links. You can contact support to request the feed be immediately fetched.

Manage episode 262327597 series 2681418
A tartalmat a Daniel Bates and Cambridge University biztosítja. Az összes podcast-tartalmat, beleértve az epizódokat, grafikákat és podcast-leírásokat, közvetlenül a Daniel Bates and Cambridge University vagy a podcast platform partnere tölti fel és biztosítja. Ha úgy gondolja, hogy valaki az Ön engedélye nélkül használja fel a szerzői joggal védett művét, kövesse az itt leírt folyamatot https://hu.player.fm/legal.
A discussion held at the University of Cambridge on 18 November 2019, with Sir Patrick Elias, Professor Mark Elliott, and Professor Alison Young. The event was hosted by the Centre for Public Law. In R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court, by 4 judgments to 3, concluded that a clause removing judicial review of the court over decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), including those as to whether the IPT had jurisdiction, could not remove judicial review by the court for legal errors made by the IPT when determining its jurisdiction. The legislation could be interpreted so as not to remove review over purported decisions as to whether the IPT had jurisdiction – in other words those decisions tainted by a legal error. The individual judgments provide an array of arguments which have an impact on how courts interpret ouster clauses and legislation more generally, the foundations of judicial review, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. This lecture explains the judgments and evaluates their implications. For more information see: https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/
  continue reading

553 epizódok

Artwork
iconMegosztás
 

Fetch error

Hmmm there seems to be a problem fetching this series right now. Last successful fetch was on January 16, 2025 15:36 (18h ago)

What now? This series will be checked again in the next day. If you believe it should be working, please verify the publisher's feed link below is valid and includes actual episode links. You can contact support to request the feed be immediately fetched.

Manage episode 262327597 series 2681418
A tartalmat a Daniel Bates and Cambridge University biztosítja. Az összes podcast-tartalmat, beleértve az epizódokat, grafikákat és podcast-leírásokat, közvetlenül a Daniel Bates and Cambridge University vagy a podcast platform partnere tölti fel és biztosítja. Ha úgy gondolja, hogy valaki az Ön engedélye nélkül használja fel a szerzői joggal védett művét, kövesse az itt leírt folyamatot https://hu.player.fm/legal.
A discussion held at the University of Cambridge on 18 November 2019, with Sir Patrick Elias, Professor Mark Elliott, and Professor Alison Young. The event was hosted by the Centre for Public Law. In R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court, by 4 judgments to 3, concluded that a clause removing judicial review of the court over decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), including those as to whether the IPT had jurisdiction, could not remove judicial review by the court for legal errors made by the IPT when determining its jurisdiction. The legislation could be interpreted so as not to remove review over purported decisions as to whether the IPT had jurisdiction – in other words those decisions tainted by a legal error. The individual judgments provide an array of arguments which have an impact on how courts interpret ouster clauses and legislation more generally, the foundations of judicial review, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. This lecture explains the judgments and evaluates their implications. For more information see: https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/
  continue reading

553 epizódok

Minden epizód

×
 
Loading …

Üdvözlünk a Player FM-nél!

A Player FM lejátszó az internetet böngészi a kiváló minőségű podcastok után, hogy ön élvezhesse azokat. Ez a legjobb podcast-alkalmazás, Androidon, iPhone-on és a weben is működik. Jelentkezzen be az feliratkozások szinkronizálásához az eszközök között.

 

Gyors referencia kézikönyv

Hallgassa ezt a műsort, miközben felfedezi
Lejátszás