Talk:A v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Latest comment: 13 years ago by ISTB351 in topic Previous Actions

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

edit

This article is completely incorrect. A v. SSHD was about the indefinite detention without trial of the "Belmarsh detainees". The House of Lords held that this was unlawful.

Contrarily, A v. SSHD (No. 2) was the case about the admissibility of evidence that has been or may have been obtained by torture. There is not (yet) an article on this on Wikipedia. Do not get these cases confused, they are entirely different. A is not the same as A (No. 2).

I offer to help and correct at least the torture case, if the Wikipedia community would like me to. Please could someone add to here their consent before I begin, to ensure I am doing the right thing? Note again that this article is incorrect and refers to the wrong case. 13th Law Lord 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As the one who probably did most of the butchering, please go right ahead and fix it up. -PullUpYourSocks 01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Righto, I'll get onto it. Thanks. 13th Law Lord 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

edit