Huntley v Attorney General for Jamaica

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1995
Year1995
Date1995
CourtPrivy Council
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
19 cases
  • Joseph and Boyce v Attorney General et Al
    • Barbados
    • Court of Appeal (Barbados)
    • 31 May 2005
    ...interpreting the fundamental rights provisions in the Constitution is also to be found in the JCPC judgment of Lord Woolf in Huntley v. Attorney General for Jamaica [1995] 2 A.C. 1 at pages 12F and 13B, as follows: “[A] technical approach is not the appropriate approach [to] Chapter III of ......
  • Abraham v Thompson
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 24 July 1997
    ...v McClellandUNK (unreported) 6 November 1992, which seems to be part of the litigation saga of which Shevill v Presse Alliance SAELR[1995] 2 AC 1, 8 is also part, and Condliffe v HislopWLR[1996] 1 WLR 753.-Unfortunately no transcript of the judgment of Drake J in Broxton v McClelland is ava......
  • Watson v The Queen
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 7 July 2004
    ...the acts which attracted the mandatory penalty were the same acts as before. In support of this proposition he referred to Huntley v Attorney-General for Jamaica [1995] 2 AC 1, 14C where Lord Woolf, dealing with an argument that section 7 of the 1992 Act which provided for the classificati......
  • Abdool Salim Yasseen and Thomas v Attorney-General
    • Guyana
    • Court of Appeal (Guyana)
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Common Law and the Litigation of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Before the Privy Council
    • Jamaica
    • Transitions in Caribbean Law The habits of constitutionalism
    • 21 November 2013
    ...in Furnell v Whangarei High Schools Board [1973] AC 660 (PC NZ) 679, requiring courts to look at the speciic circumstances of a case. 52. [1995] 2 AC 1 (PC Ja). 53. Wiseman (n 51). The Court, however, declined to follow the decision in this case, and declared that the absence of a provision......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT