Difference between revisions of "Re Julie John (habeas corpus) (1998) EWHC Admin 472"

 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
''Challenge to the use of s2 in an apparent attempt to get round the requirement for consultation before s3. Application dismissed as judicial review was the appropriate form of proceedings.''
 
''Challenge to the use of s2 in an apparent attempt to get round the requirement for consultation before s3. Application dismissed as judicial review was the appropriate form of proceedings.''
 +
 +
==Citations==
 +
[1998] COD 306
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Latest revision as of 21:10, 22 May 2020

Challenge to the use of s2 in an apparent attempt to get round the requirement for consultation before s3. Application dismissed as judicial review was the appropriate form of proceedings.

Citations

[1998] COD 306

External links

Possible Bailii link (not there when last checked, but it might have appeared since 0700 this morning!)