Case Comment R v Golds

dc.cclicenceN/Aen
dc.contributor.authorMackay, R.en
dc.date.acceptance2016-12-23en
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-07T13:34:34Z
dc.date.available2017-03-07T13:34:34Z
dc.date.issued2017-02-06
dc.description.abstractA critical discussion of the Supreme Court's decision on diminished responsibility in R v Goldsen
dc.explorer.multimediaNoen
dc.funderN/Aen
dc.identifier.citationMackay, R. (2017) Case Comment R v Golds. Archbold Review 4-5en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2086/13450
dc.language.isoenen
dc.peerreviewedNoen
dc.projectidN/Aen
dc.publisherSweet & Maxwellen
dc.researchinstituteCentre for Law, Justice and Societyen
dc.subjectCase Comment on R v Goldsen
dc.titleCase Comment R v Goldsen
dc.typeArticleen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
Archbold Review Golds Comment.pdf
Size:
14.38 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
4.2 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: