Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/DPP v Santana-Bermudez"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Daniel Case
(OK)
imported>Yoninah
(restoring tick)
Line 25: Line 25:
 
::::*'''ALT1a''': ... that '''[[DPP v Santana-Bermudez|a 2003 English court case]]''' ruled that someone who lies about having sharp items in their pocket while being searched can be charged with assault if the searcher is injured as a result? [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 00:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 
::::*'''ALT1a''': ... that '''[[DPP v Santana-Bermudez|a 2003 English court case]]''' ruled that someone who lies about having sharp items in their pocket while being searched can be charged with assault if the searcher is injured as a result? [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 00:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 
::::::{{replyto|Yoninah}} Yes, this works better, especially because that way we know what country the case came from. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 
::::::{{replyto|Yoninah}} Yes, this works better, especially because that way we know what country the case came from. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 04:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 +
:::::::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Thanks, {{u|Daniel Case}}. Restoring tick per your review. [[User:Yoninah|Yoninah]] ([[User talk:Yoninah|talk]]) 15:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 15:50, 28 June 2018

DPP v Santana-Bermudez

  • ... that the case of DPP v Santana-Bermudez held that an assault can be committed when no positive action has been taken in order to do so? Source: Bailii
    • ALT1:... in English law, DPP v Santana-Bermudez found that a person lying about sharp items in their pocket when being searched, is liable to be charged with assault if the searcher is injured as a result? Source: Bailii

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 19:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC).

16px Length, history and reference verified; Earwig detects no possible copyvio. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
16px Template:Ping Review is incomplete as not all of the criteria have been mentioned. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Template:Replyto OK, since I didn't mention it, the hook is cited within the article. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 16px Hi, I came by to promote this, but think the ALT1 should be written more clearly. We don't really need to spell out the whole case name, do we? Could we write:
  • ALT1a: ... that a 2003 English court case ruled that someone who lies about having sharp items in their pocket while being searched can be charged with assault if the searcher is injured as a result? Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Template:Replyto Yes, this works better, especially because that way we know what country the case came from. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)