Source: https://southsideonlinepublishing.com/en/2017-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 05:15:53+00:00

Document:
Issue: Whether the common law of New Zealand should give effect to Māori custom when determining burial rights in respect of a deceaseds body; whether the executrix was entitled to take possession of the body notwithstanding a traditional Māori burial already having taken place.
Issue: Whether the States positive duties under Art 2 extended to ensuring the effective functioning of a regulatory framework where private activities might put the public at risk; whether Art 2 procedural obligations had been violated by the failure of legal proceedings to establish the States regulatory failures.
Issue: Whether Art 2 required public funding to be provided for legal representation at an inquest for a relative of the deceased when funding had already been provided for other relatives, but discord between those relatives had led to them instructing different legal representatives.
Issue: Whether there had been a failure to conduct an effective investigation into a death at work upon a ship abroad so as to breach the procedural obligation under Art 2 ECHR.
Issue: Whether, for the purposes of Art 2, the UK criminal law of self-defence was sufficient justification for killing when the belief of an imminent threat was both mistaken and not objectively reasonable; Whether, following a police shooting, the decision not to prosecute individual officers could constitute a procedural breach of Art 2.
Issue: Whether a death in a hospital intensive care unit was a death in “state detention” within the meaning of s7 and s48(2) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 thereby mandating the Coroner to empanel a jury.
Issue: Whether a critical report by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland completed some years after an inquest into a death due to an IRA bomb was sufficient to revive the Art 2 procedural obligation to investigate.
Issue: Whether where the justification of self-defence was raised at an inquest a specific direction had to be given to the jury that the reasonableness of any honestly held belief in an imminent threat was a relevant consideration.
Issue: Whether a judicial body should be ordered to pay the costs of a successful application to judicially review its decision where it took no part in those judicial review proceedings.
Copyright © 2019 Southside Online Publishing. All rights reserved.

References: Art 2
 Art 2
 Art 2
 Art 2
 Art 2
 Art 2
 Art 2