Back v Holmes
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Year | 1887 |
| Date | 1887 |
| Court | Central Criminal Court (Ireland) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
4 cases
-
The Police Federation v The Commissioner of The Independent Commission of Investigations
...should proceed to a hearing. He made this finding after analysing four cases, namely: Cole v Coulton (1860) 24 JP 596; Back v Homes [1887] 51 JP 693; Giebler v Manning; and Lake v Smith (1911) 10 LGR 218, but those were cases in which issues had been raised as to whether local bodies, the p......
-
Ewing v Davis
...morals…" The authorities cited for that proposition, which I will analyse in due course, are Coles v Coulton [1860] 24 JP 596, Back v Homes [1887] 51 JP 693, Giebler v Manning [1906] 1 KB 709 and Lake v Smith [1911] 76 JP 71. The editor goes on to observe: "In modern language, the test may ......
-
Gladstone Plc v Manchester City Magistrates' Court and Another
...grievance, but a matter of public policy and utility, and concerns the public morals ( Cole v Coulton (1860) 24 JP 596; Back v Holmes (1887) 51 JP 693; Giebler v Manning [1906] 1 KB 709, 70 JP 181; Lake v Smith (1911) 76 JP 71). In the case of a police prosecution, the information should be......
- Brebner v Bruce