翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R Umadevi Nagaraj ・ R Ursae Minoris ・ R v Adams ・ R v Adams (1957) ・ R v Adams (South Africa) ・ R v Albert ・ R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ・ R (complexity) ・ R (cross section ratio) ・ R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ・ R (disambiguation) ・ R (E) v Governing Body of JFS ・ R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport ・ R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport ・ R (film) ・ R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis ・ R (Green Environmental Industries Ltd) v Hertfordshire CC ・ R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport ・ R (Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd) v Central Arbitration Committee ・ R (L) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis ・ R (Los Angeles Railway) ・ R (National Union of Journalists) v Central Arbitration Committee ・ R (New York City Subway service) ・ R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice ・ R (on the application of SG and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ・ R (Playfoot) v Millais School Governing Body ・ R (programming language) ・ R (ProLife Alliance) v BBC ・ R (R. Kelly album) ・ R (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis ： ウィキペディア英語版 R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis ''R (on the application of GC) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis'' () UKSC 21 was a 2011 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The case concerned the extent of the police's power to indefinitely retain biometric data associated with individuals who are no longer suspected of a criminal offence. In the case, a majority of the Supreme Court, including the Court's President Lord Phillips and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge reversed an earlier ruling of the High Court of Justice and found that the police force's policy of retaining DNA evidence in the absence of 'exceptional circumstances' was unlawful and a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court declined to offer any specific relief however, recognising that the policy is expected to be subject to legislative scrutiny as Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011. ==Facts== The case concerned the applications of two individuals (who were granted anonymity) who had been suspected of criminal offences and subsequently been cleared. Both individuals had applied to the police force requesting the destruction of DNA and other biometric data which the police force had retained, the police refused both requests citing an ACPO guideline which permitted the destruction of biometric data only in 'exceptional circumstances'. Both individuals made an application to the High Court asking for judicial review of the police's decision. As the court was bound by a House of Lords precedent - ''R(S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire'' () UKHL 39〔((2004) UKHL 39 )〕 - they refused the application, but gave permission for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court.〔((2010) EWHC 2225 (Admin) )〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R (GC) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.