This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
I just added 'By 1990, Lord Goff of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords stated in the case Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (No. 2) [1990] 1 A.C. 109, at p. 283G, that "[In England] everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law."' But I was surprised that this principle is not an ancient one in common law (one of those with a Latin name like "nulla poena sine lege"), but only established/stated explicitly in 1990. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The other question is (with due respect) whether this is actually a common law principle older than 1990, or was it just made up by the noble learned Lord Goff. The Guardian judgment has been cited as authority since, but it does not seem to be based on earlier authority. But IANAL. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Entick v. Carrington is usually cited for this principle. The state may do nothing but that which is prescribed by law, and the citizen may do anything but that which is proscribed by law. Wikidea11:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a joke - all it talks about are legal formalities which bear no connection to the realities on the ground. There is no mention of the documented torture of Irish freedom fighters and the documented constant harassment of political dissidents. It was probably written by the security services. Outrageous! 108.208.49.69 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Londonbombing2.jpg
The image Image:Londonbombing2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Flagging this up as it misrepresents the civil proceedings of Malone without mention of the decision of the ECtHR or an accurate description of Entick in this context, or an accurate description of the ratio either. Also, just generally poorly written. 158.143.213.115 (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
158.143.213.115, please edit the article directly to correct this or suggest the actual wording changes required. The easiest way to do this is to create a user account (but this is not necessary). Whizz40 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
