R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Mead and Cook
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 1992 |
| Date | 20 March 1992 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
48 cases
-
[1] Henry Liu [2] Feng Huang Appellants v [1] Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica [2] DPP [3] Comptroller of Customs Respondents [ECSC]
...principle, is a highly exceptional remedy. The language of the cases shows a uniform approach: 'rare in the extreme' ( R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Meade [1993] 1 All ER 772 at 782,, 'sparingly exercised' ( R v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte C [1995] 1 Cr App Rep 136......
-
[1] Henry Liu [2] Feng Huang Appellants v [1] Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Dominica [2] DPP [3] Comptroller of Customs Respondents [ECSC]
...remedy. The language of the cases shows a uniform approach: 'rare in the extreme' ( R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Meade [1993] 1 All ER 772 at 782,, 'sparingly exercised' ( R v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte C [1995] 1 Cr App Rep 136 at 140), 'very hesitant' ( Kostuch......
-
Danville Walker v Contractor-General
...remedy. The language of the cases shows a uniform approach: “rare in the extreme” ( R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Mead [1993] 1 All ER 772 at 782), “sparingly exercised” ( R v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte C [1995] 1 Cr App Rep 136 at 140), “very hesitant ” ( Kostuc......
-
Lowry v DPP
...application was made. In support of the arguments on this strand, the applicant relied on R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners XP Meade [1993] 1 All ER 772, the State (O'Callaghan) v. O'hUadhaigh [1997] I.R. 42 and the State (Healy) v. Donoghue [1965] I.R. 325. 40 The fourth and final strand......
Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
-
Judicial review of executive power : legality, rationality and reasonableness (2)
...4 LRC 712 (Fiji SC) at 735-736; Mohit v DPP, Mauritius [2006] UKPC 2093paras 17 and 21.R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte Mead [1993] 1 All ER 772 at 782.94R v DPP, Ex parte C [1995] 1 Cr App R 136 at 140.95R (Pepushi) v Crown Prosecution Service [2004] EW HC 798 para 49.96R (Bermin......
-
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
...before the law and ntitled to the equal protection of the law.” 27[2012] 2 SLR 1012. 28 R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Mead [1993] 1 All ER 772; R v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte C[1995] 1 Cr App R 136; R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office[2007] 2 WLR ......