№ lp_2_1_34513
File format: docx
Character count: 13991
File size: 49 KB
Research examining how much a sentence must stray from the permissible range in Victoria for it to be deemed manifestly excessive based on appeals.
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Victoria
Topic:
Sentencing, Appeals, Criminal Law
Document Type:
Research Article
Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Paul McGorrery, Matthew Weatherson
Target Audience:
Legal professionals, judges, magistrates, law students
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Date of Approval:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Publication:
Journal of Social Security Law
Author:
Dr Jed Meers
Author affiliation:
York Law School, University of York
Country:
United Kingdom
Academic field:
Human rights law
Related fields:
Social security law; Judicial review; Discrimination law; Proportionality
Keywords:
Disability discrimination; Margin of appreciation; Subsidiarity; Benefit cap; Bedroom tax
Legal framework discussed:
European Convention on Human Rights
Key case referenced:
R (on the application of DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Type of document:
Academic legal article
Primary topic:
Application of the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” standard in domestic judicial review
Focus of analysis:
Justification of discrimination in social welfare policies
Approximate word count:
5,303 (including footnotes)
Note:
Year
Region / City:
Queensland
Topic:
Heat management, Health, Sports safety
Document Type:
Guidelines
Organization:
Queensland Health, WorkSafe Queensland, Department of Health
Target Audience:
Schools, Sports participants, Officials
Context:
Guidelines for managing excessive heat in schools and outdoor sporting activities, providing safety measures for health risks associated with hot weather.
Year:
2024
Region / city:
United Kingdom
Topic:
Asthma treatment guidelines, drug safety
Document type:
Guideline update
Organization / institution:
NICE, SIGN, BTS
Author:
National Health Service
Target audience:
Healthcare professionals, asthma patients
Period of validity:
2024-2026
Approval date:
2024
Date of changes:
2025
Context:
The document provides updated clinical guidelines and recommendations for reducing the overuse of Short-acting beta 2 agonists (SABA) in asthma management and emphasizes safer asthma treatment pathways.
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Legal Analysis
Document Type:
Memorandum
Author:
Cory Bates-Rogers
Target Audience:
Legal professionals
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Neutral Citation Number:
[2022] EWCA Crim 1508
Case Number:
202200339 A3
Court:
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Originating Court:
Southwark Crown Court
Judge:
HHJ Tomlinson
Hearing Date:
9 November 2022
Judgment Date:
17 November 2022
Appellant:
Bupa Care Homes (ANS) Ltd
Respondent:
London Fire Commissioner
Legal Representatives Appellant:
Richard Matthews KC & Eleanor Sanderson (Browne Jacobson LLP)
Legal Representatives Respondent:
Saba Naqshbandi & Genevieve Woods
Type of Document:
Approved Judgment
Subject Matter:
Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014
Incident Date:
13 March 2016
Location of Incident:
Manley Court, John Williams Close, Brockley, London, SE14 5XA
Resident Involved:
Cedric Skyers
Penalty:
Fine £937,500, Costs £104,425.42
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Ritzville, Washington
Subject:
Legal Judgment
Document Type:
Court Order
Agency:
Adams County District Court
Author:
Court
Target Audience:
Defendant, Legal Representatives
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Note:
Year
Contextual Description:
Special Material to assist courts in determining sentence credit under Wisconsin Stat. § 973.155, focusing on pretrial custody and sentence credit calculation.
Year:
2017
Region / City:
Melbourne
Subject:
Criminal Law, Justice
Document Type:
Court Judgment
Organization / Institution:
County Court of Victoria
Author:
His Honour Judge Higham
Target Audience:
Legal professionals, law students, public
Effective Period:
2017
Approval Date:
16 June 2017
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Year:
2026
Organization:
Montana Farmers Union
Recipient:
4-H Clubs in Montana
Funding Amount:
$100 per club
Total Funding Available:
$10,000
Application Deadline:
October 1, 2026
Eligibility:
Montana 4-H clubs (4-H Leaders Councils not eligible)
Application Method:
Mail or email submission
Contact Information:
[email protected]
Note:
, 300 River Drive N, Ste 1, PO Box 2447, Great Falls, MT 59403
Document Type:
Grant Application Letter
Year:
N/A
Region / City:
N/A
Topic:
Punctuation
Document Type:
Exercise
Organization / Institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Students / Learners of English Grammar
Effective Period:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2003
Region / City:
Western Australia
Subject:
Law, Sentencing, Parole
Document Type:
Act
Organization / Institution:
Western Australia Government
Author:
Western Australian Government
Target Audience:
Legal professionals, government officials, and stakeholders in the criminal justice system
Period of Effect:
Ongoing from 2003
Date of Approval:
2003
Date of Amendments:
Ongoing
Year:
2023
Region / city:
N/A
Theme:
Grammar exercise
Document type:
Educational worksheet
Organization:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target audience:
Students learning English grammar
Effective period:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Modification date:
N/A
Year:
2007
Author:
Huddleston
Topic:
Grammar
Type of Document:
Academic article
Target Audience:
Linguists, Students of English Grammar
Period of Validity:
N/A
Date of Approval:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
N/A
Region / City:
N/A
Topic:
Abstract formatting
Document Type:
Template
Author:
A. B. Author1, C. D. Author2
Target Audience:
Authors preparing abstracts
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Context:
Template for abstract submission with detailed formatting instructions.
Note:
Year
Document Type:
Lesson Plan
Organization / Institution:
FAYOL INC.
Year:
2026
Region / City:
International
Topic:
Educational Writing / English Language Arts
Document Type:
Instructional Template
Institution / Organization:
Unknown
Author:
Unknown
Target Audience:
Students, Educators
Purpose:
Teaching comparison and contrast structure in writing
Key Terms:
Similarities, Differences, Topic Sentences, Conclusion Sentences, Text Evidence Terms, Signal Words
Year:
2020
Region / city:
District of Columbia
Subject:
Criminal Law, COVID-19 Pandemic
Document Type:
Legal Motion
Organization / Institution:
Superior Court for the District of Columbia
Author:
Legal Counsel for Defendant
Target Audience:
Legal professionals, judges, incarcerated individuals
Period of validity:
Ongoing since March 2020
Approval Date:
March 11, 2020
Date of amendments:
None specified