Case Law x Flashcards
(229 cards)
1
Q
Rule of law - what is the case of Entick v Carrington (1765)
A
Court ruled in favour of entick declaring government actions unlawful.
2
Q
What case meant that the governments actions unlawful ?
A
Entick v Carrington (1765)
3
Q
Judicial precedent-what happened during the case of donoughue v Stevenson (1932)
A
Claimant became ill after drinking some ginger beer which contained the remains of a decomposed snail. The court held that manafactures owe a duty of care.
4
Q
What case is this ?
Claimant became ill after drinking some ginger beer which contained the remains of a decomposed snail. The court held that manafactures owe a duty of care.
A
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
5
Q
What happened during the case of Daniels v White (1938)
A
The claimant suffered a sore throat after drinking lemonade which contained a corrosive chemical. The manufacturers owed a duty of care .
6
Q
What case is this ?
The claimant suffered a sore throat after drinking lemonade which contained a corrosive chemical. The manufacturers owed a duty of care .
A
Daniels v White (1938)
7
Q
Judicial precedent- what happens during the case of R v Howe
A
The defence of duress wasn’t available. Especially since it was attempted murder and ruled that the defence of duress isn’t available for attempted murder.
8
Q
What case is this ? The defence of duress wasn’t available. Especially since it was attempted murder and ruled that the defence of duress isn’t available for attempted murder.
A
R v Howe
9
Q
Judicial precedent- what happened during the case of R v Gotts
A
There was a young boy raised the defence of duress to a charge of attempted murder of his mother and the court followed the obiter dicta of R v Howe and the defence was not given.
10
Q
What case is this ? There was a young boy raised the defence of duress to a charge of attempted murder of his mother and the court followed the obiter dicta of R v Howe and the defence was not given.
A
R v Gotts
11
Q
Judicial precedent - what happened in the case of R v Brown
A
The consent cannot be relied on in offences under s47 and s20 OAPA where the injuries resulted. I e tattoos , piercings and or violent sports
12
Q
What case is this ? The consent cannot be relied on in offences under s47 and s20 OAPA where the injuries resulted. I e tattoos , piercings and or violent sports
A
R v Brown
13
Q
Judicial precedent- what happens during the case of R v Wilson
A
They followed the obiter dicta In Brown as in this case a man branded his wife and the courts ruled it to be like a tattoo so it would have consent as a valid defence
14
Q
What is this case ? They followed the obiter dicta In Brown as in this case a man branded his wife and the courts ruled it to be like a tattoo so it would have consent as a valid defence
A
R v Wilson
15
Q
Judicial precedent- what happened during the case of British Railways v Herrington
A
A six year old boy was electrocuted and suffered severe burns when he wondered from a play park onto a live railway line . A gap in the fence had been used frequently as a shortcut to the park . The D were aware of the gap which had been present for several months but failed to do anything about it .
16
Q
What case is this ? A six year old boy was electrocuted and suffered severe burns when he wondered from a play park onto a live railway line . A gap in the fence had been used frequently as a shortcut to the park . The D were aware of the gap which had been present for several months but failed to do anything about it .
A
British Railways Board v Herrington
17
Q
What case meant that the court of appeal doesn’t have to follow its own previous decisions
A
Young v Bristol aeroplane 1944
18
Q
What are the three exceptions in the case of young v Bristol aeroplane 1944
A
- The previous decision was made per incuriam ( through lack of care )
- There are conflicting CA decisions (they have to pick one )
- The CA’s earlier decision is inconsistent with a later UKSC decision
19
Q
What does per incuriam mean ?
A
Means through lack of care, a finding of per incuriam means that a previous court judgement has failed to pay attention to relevant statutory provision or precedents
20
Q
Which case meant that the criminal division of the court of appeals can refuse to follow its previous decisions if the law has been misapplied
A
R v Spencer 1985
21
Q
What happened in the case of R V R
A
D was charged with the rape of his wife and at the time of the offence they had been separated and the House of Lords overturned the matrimonial exception to rape following the precedent from the lower court, D’s conviction for rape was upheld.
22
Q
What happened in the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf 1977
A
Claimants were suing for damages of loss of tv reception judges used Alfred’s case which held that no action could be brought for a loss of view by analogy interfering with tv reception was like interfering with the view and so the claim failed
23
Q
What case is this ?
Claimants were suing for damages of loss of tv reception judges used Alfred’s case which held that no action could be brought for a loss of view by analogy interfering with tv reception was like interfering with the view and so the claim failed
A
Hunter v Canary Wharf 1997
24
Q
What happened in the case of pepper v hart 1993
A
The House of Lords ruled that Hansard ( the record of what is said in parliament) could be consulted when trying to decide what certain words in an of parliament mean. The decision overruled the earlier decision in David v Johnson 1979 when the House of Lords held that it could not consult Hansard .
25
What case is this ? The House of Lords ruled that Hansard ( the record of what is said in parliament) could be consulted when trying to decide what certain words in an of parliament mean. The decision overruled the earlier decision in David v Johnson 1979 when the House of Lords held that it could not consult Hansard .
Pepper v Hart 1993
26
What happened in the case of Balfour v Balfour 1919
Mr and Mrs Balfour were living happily and they had made an agreement about a payment of a regular sum to Mrs Balfour whilst her husband worked abroad. Mrs Balfour brought a claim to enforce that agreement and this case is an example of a domestic arrangement where it can be presumed a legal intention doesn’t exist
27
What case was this ? Mr and Mrs Balfour were living happily and they had made an agreement about a payment of a regular sum to Mrs Balfour whilst her husband worked abroad. Mrs Balfour brought a claim to enforce that agreement and this case is an example of a domestic arrangement where it can be presumed a legal intention doesn’t exist
Balfour v Balfour 1919
28
What happened in the case of Merritt v Merritt 1970
Mr and Mrs Merritt were separated and they had made an agreement about a regular payment of money to enable the wife to make mortgage payments and the house would be signed over on payment of the mortgage and she brought a claim to this agreement and the agreement was binding as they were separated and agreements would be intended to be bound.
29
What case was this ? Mr and Mrs Merritt were separated and they had made an agreement about a regular payment of money to enable the wife to make mortgage payments and the house would be signed over on payment of the mortgage and she brought a claim to this agreement and the agreement was binding as they were separated and agreements would be intended to be bound.
Merritt v Merritt 1970
30
What happened in the case of R v Kingston 1984
D was given a cup of coffee that was spiked and became involuntarily intoxicated and brought a 15 year old boy and abused him as he was a homosexual with paedophillic inclinations and the jury found him guilty but the conviction was quashed as he didn’t have the intention but then the conviction was reversed and the conviction was reinstated as the drugged intent was still intent
31
What case is this ? D was given a cup of coffee that was spiked and became involuntarily intoxicated and brought a 15 year old boy and abused him as he was a homosexual with paedophillic inclinations and the jury found him guilty but the conviction was quashed as he didn’t have the intention but then the conviction was reversed and the conviction was reinstated as the drugged intent was still intent
R v Kingston 1984
32
What happened in the case of R ( miller ) v Secretary of State for exiting the European Union 2017
In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the government couldn’t trigger article 50 without parliaments approval .
33
R ( miller ) v Secretary of State for exiting the European Union relates to which topic
Parliamentary law making
34
What happens in the case of R v Harris 1836
D bit off the victims nose and the statute made it an offence to stab , cut or wound and the court held under the literal rule as it didn’t apply to the criteria as if it did it would’ve implied an instrument was used so therefore D’s conviction was quashed .
35
What case is this D bit off the victims nose and the statute made it an offence to stab , cut or wound and the court held under the literal rule as it didn’t apply to the criteria as if it did it would’ve implied an instrument was used so therefore D’s conviction was quashed .
R v Harris 1836
36
What topic does the case of R v Harris 1836 relate to
Literal rule - statutory interpretation
37
What happened in the case of Whiteley v Chappell 1868
A statute made it an offence to impersonate any person untitled to vote and D used the vote of a dead man and the relevant statute the voter must be alive to be entitled to vote so D was acquitted
38
What case is this ? A statute made it an offence to impersonate any person untitled to vote and D used the vote of a dead man and the relevant statute the voter must be alive to be entitled to vote so D was acquitted
Whiteley v Chappell 1868
39
What topic does Whiteley v Chappell relate to ?
Literal rule - statutory interpretation
40
What happened in the case of LNER v Berriman 1946
V worked on railways and was killed whilst oiling the track and there was no lookout provided and it was held under the literal rule as Berriman was involved in routine maintenance and wasn’t relaying or repairing the tracks so his widow wasn’t entitled to compensation
41
What case is this ? V worked on railways and was killed whilst oiling the track and there was no lookout provided and it was held under the literal rule as Berriman was involved in routine maintenance and wasn’t relaying or repairing the tracks so his widow wasn’t entitled to compensation
LNER v Berriman 1946
42
What topic in law does LNER v Berriman relate to ?
The literal rule - statutory interpretation
43
What happened in the case of R v D 2019
The defendant had been subject to a stop and search and the police officers found in his trouser pocket a folding cut throat razor and the cutting edge was less than 2 inches and there was no locking mechanism. S.139 criminal justice act 1988 provides that it is an offence to carry an article in a public place which has a blade or is sharply pointed - except for a folding pocket knife less than 3 inches long section 139 (3) . And the judge ruled that the article was a folding pocketknife and the ruling was wrong in law as a cutthroat razor doesn’t fit the description of a pocketknife.
44
What case is this ? The defendant had been subject to a stop and search and the police officers found in his trouser pocket a folding cut throat razor and the cutting edge was less than 2 inches and there was no locking mechanism. S.139 criminal justice act 1988 provides that it is an offence to carry an article in a public place which has a blade or is sharply pointed - except for a folding pocket knife less than 3 inches long section 139 (3) . And the judge ruled that the article was a folding pocketknife and the ruling was wrong in law as a cutthroat razor doesn’t fit the description of a pocketknife.
R v D 2019
45
What case is this ? The defendant had been subject to a stop and search and the police officers found in his trouser pocket a folding cut throat razor and the cutting edge was less than 2 inches and there was no locking mechanism. S.139 criminal justice act 1988 provides that it is an offence to carry an article in a public place which has a blade or is sharply pointed - except for a folding pocket knife less than 3 inches long section 139 (3) . And the judge ruled that the article was a folding pocketknife and the ruling was wrong in law as a cutthroat razor doesn’t fit the description of a pocketknife.
R v D 2019
46
What happened in the case of Cheeseman v DDP 1990
Section 28 of the town and country planning act 1847 provided an offence of ‘wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers’ cheeseman indecently exposed himself in some public toilets.There had been complaints of him doing previously therefore the officers were stationed at the site
47
What case is this ? Section 28 of the town and country planning act 1847 provided an offence of ‘wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers’ cheeseman indecently exposed himself in some public toilets.There had been complaints of him doing previously therefore the officers were stationed at the site
Cheeseman v DDP 1990
48
What happened in the case of Adler v George 1964
The official secrets act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces when in the vicinity of a prohibited place. D was actually inside the airbase as opposed to within the vicinity of it and was held under the narrow approach to the golden rule and D was found guilty as the court interpreted the words ‘ in the vicinity of ‘ to be meaning in or in the vicinity of the prohibited place .
49
What case is this ? The official secrets act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces when in the vicinity of a prohibited place. D was actually inside the airbase as opposed to within the vicinity of it and was held under the narrow approach to the golden rule and D was found guilty as the court interpreted the words ‘ in the vicinity of ‘ to be meaning in or in the vicinity of the prohibited place .
Adler v George 1964
50
What happened during the case of R v Allen 1872
D was charged with bigamy under the s57 of the offences against the person act 1861 the section stated that whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence . By using literal interpretation the offence would be impossible to commit as family law does not recognise a second marriage which the first is still in existence. It was under the narrow approach to the golden rule and the word marry should be given the meaning of ‘ going through a ceremony of marriage ‘ D was found guilty.
51
What case is this ? D was charged with bigamy under the s57 of the offences against the person act 1861 the section stated that whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence . By using literal interpretation the offence would be impossible to commit as family law does not recognise a second marriage which the first is still in existence. It was under the narrow approach to the golden rule and the word marry should be given the meaning of ‘ going through a ceremony of marriage ‘ D was found guilty.
R v Allen 1872
52
What happened during Re Sigsworth 1935
This is where D had murdered his mother and the mum hadn’t made a will under the administration of justice act 1925 her estate would go to her next of kin and there was no ambiguity in the words of the act but the court was not prepared to let her son who has committed the crime benefit from his wrongdoings and it was held under the broad approach of the golden approach
53
What case is this ? This is where D had murdered his mother and the mum hadn’t made a will under the administration of justice act 1925 her estate would go to her next of kin and there was no ambiguity in the words of the act but the court was not prepared to let her son who has committed the crime benefit from his wrongdoings and it was held under the broad approach of the golden approach
Re sigsworth 1935
54
What case was the mischief rule formed in ?
Heydon’s case 1584
55
Which rule did heydon’s case 1584 form
Mischief rule
56
What happened in the case of Elliot v Grey 1960
The D’s car was on the side of the road and it was jacked up and had its battery removed and he was charged with an offence under the road traffic act 1930 of using an uninsured vehicle on the road and D argued he wasn’t using the car on the road as it was clearly not driveable and was held using the mischief rule and held that the car was being used on the road as it was a hazard and had to have insurance if there was an incident and it would be required.
57
What case is this ? The D’s car was on the side of the road and it was jacked up and had its battery removed and he was charged with an offence under the road traffic act 1930 of using an uninsured vehicle on the road and D argued he wasn’t using the car on the road as it was clearly not driveable and was held using the mischief rule and held that the car was being used on the road as it was a hazard and had to have insurance if there was an incident and it would be required.
Elliott v Grey 1960
58
What happened in the case of Smith v Hughes 1960
The defendants were prostitutes and had been charged under the street offences act 1959 and it made it an offence to solicit in a public place and the D’s were soliciting from a private house and it was held under the mischief rule and they were found guilty as they were soliciting within the mischief of the act
59
What case is this ? The defendants were prostitutes and had been charged under the street offences act 1959 and it made it an offence to solicit in a public place and the D’s were soliciting from a private house and it was held under the mischief rule and they were found guilty as they were soliciting within the mischief of the act
Smith v Hughes 1960
60
What happened in the case of Royal college of nursing v DHSS 1981
The OAPA act 1861 makes it an offence for any person to carry out an abortion . The abortion act 1967 provided that it would be an absolute defence for a medically registered practitioner to carry out abortions provided certain conditions were satisfied. Advances in medical science meant surgical abortions were largely replaced with hormonal abortions and it was common for these to be administered and it was held under the mischief rule and it was legal for nurses to carry out such abortions and the act was trying to stop the mischief of backstreet abortions
61
What case is this ? The OAPA act 1861 makes it an offence for any person to carry out an abortion . The abortion act 1967 provided that it would be an absolute defence for a medically registered practitioner to carry out abortions provided certain conditions were satisfied. Advances in medical science meant surgical abortions were largely replaced with hormonal abortions and it was common for these to be administered and it was held under the mischief rule and it was legal for nurses to carry out such abortions and the act was trying to stop the mischief of backstreet abortions
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981
62
What happened in the case of Fisher v Bell 1961
The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it . Statute made it an offence to ‘ offer’ such flick knifes for sale and his conviction was quashed as goods on display are not ‘offers’ and the court applied the literal rule from statutory interpretation.
63
What case is this ? The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it . Statute made it an offence to ‘ offer’ such flick knifes for sale and his conviction was quashed as goods on display are not ‘offers’ and the court applied the literal rule from statutory interpretation.
Fisher v Bell 1961
64
What happened during the case of Jones v Tower boot company 1997
The court had to decide whether the physical and verbal abuse of a young black worker by his work mates fell within the ‘ course of employment’ under s32 of the race regulations act 1976 and the employer argued that the actions fell outside the course of the workmate’s employment because such behaviour wasn’t part of the job. Held under the purposive approach and this was due to the government’s intention to remove workplace discrimination and the employees were liable for compensation
65
What case is this ? The court had to decide whether the physical and verbal abuse of a young black worker by his work mates fell within the ‘ course of employment’ under s32 of the race regulations act 1976 and the employer argued that the actions fell outside the course of the workmate’s employment because such behaviour wasn’t part of the job. Held under the purposive approach and this was due to the government’s intention to remove workplace discrimination and the employees were liable for compensation
Jones v Tower Boot Company 1997
66
What happened in the case of R v Registrar General ex parte Smith 1990
The appellant applied for a copy of his birth certificate to discover the identity of his natural mother and the appellant suffered with bouts of violent psychosis and his psychiatrist believed he posed a danger to his natural mother and was under the literal interpretation of the adoption act 1976
67
What case is this? The appellant applied for a copy of his birth certificate to discover the identity of his natural mother and the appellant suffered with bouts of violent psychosis and his psychiatrist believed he posed a danger to his natural mother and was under the literal interpretation of the adoption act 1976
R v registrar general ex parte smith 1990
68
What happened in the case of R v Pitham and heil 1977
The D’s sold furniture belonging to another person and in that person’s house. So the D’s did not physically have the furniture. Held: the court held that this was an appropriation. It didn’t matter whether or not the furniture was removed from the house and the owner was never deprived of the property.
69
What case is this ? The D’s sold furniture belonging to another person and in that person’s house. So the D’s did not physically have the furniture. Held: the court held that this was an appropriation. It didn’t matter whether or not the furniture was removed from the house and the owner was never deprived of the property.
R v Pitham and Heil 1977
70
What topic does the case of R v Pitham and Heil 1977
Theft
71
What happened in the case of R v Morris 1983
D switched the price tag labels on goods in a supermarket in order to pay a lower price. He had taken the goods to the checkout and was arrested . D was convicted of theft and appealed. D’s conviction was upheld and the court held that there doesn’t need to an assumption of all of the rights of the owner and the assumption of any rights of the owner would suffice.
72
What case is this ? D switched the price tag labels on goods in a supermarket in order to pay a lower price. He had taken the goods to the checkout and was arrested . D was convicted of theft and appealed. D’s conviction was upheld and the court held that there doesn’t need to an assumption of all of the rights of the owner and the assumption of any rights of the owner would suffice.
R v Morris 1983
73
What topic does the case of R v Morris 1983
Theft
74
What happened in the case of Lawerence v MPC 1972
D taxi driver was allowed by an Italian student to help himself to £6 from his wallet for a journey which should have only cost 50 p. D argued that he had not appropriated the money as the student agreed to him taking it ( consent ). D’s conviction was upheld and the court held that there was an appropriation even where the owner consents.
75
What case is this ? D taxi driver was allowed by an Italian student to help himself to £6 from his wallet for a journey which should have only cost 50 p. D argued that he had not appropriated the money as the student agreed to him taking it ( consent ). D’s conviction was upheld and the court held that there was an appropriation even where the owner consents.
Lawrence v MPC 1972
76
What topic does the case of Lawrence v MPC 1972 relate to ?
Theft - appropriation and consent
77
What happened in the case of R v Gomez 1993
D worked as a shop assistant. He persuaded the manager to accept, in payment for goods , two cheques which he knew to be stolen and had no value . D’s conviction was upheld . The HOL held that an appropriation had taken place even though the manager consented to the supplying the goods. An appropriation doesn’t need absence of consent .
78
What case is this ? D worked as a shop assistant. He persuaded the manager to accept, in payment for goods , two cheques which he knew to be stolen and had no value . D’s conviction was upheld . The HOL held that an appropriation had taken place even though the manager consented to the supplying the goods. An appropriation doesn’t need absence of consent .
R v Gomez 1993
79
What topic does the case of R v Gomez 1993 relate to ?
Theft - appropriation and consent
80
What happened in the case of R v Hinks 2000
V was a man of limited intelligence had been persuaded to give D , Mrs Hinks who claimed to be his ‘carer’ a TV and £60,000 over a period of a few months. D argued there was no theft as it was a valid gift but she was convicted, D appealed on the basis that a valid gift couldn’t be theft . HOL decided by majority of a 3-2 that even accepting a gift can be appropriation . There was appropriation here even though the gifts were valid.
81
What case is this? V was a man of limited intelligence had been persuaded to give D , Mrs Hinks who claimed to be his ‘carer’ a TV and £60,000 over a period of a few months. D argued there was no theft as it was a valid gift but she was convicted, D appealed on the basis that a valid gift couldn’t be theft . HOL decided by majority of a 3-2 that even accepting a gift can be appropriation . There was appropriation here even though the gifts were valid.
R v Hinks 2000
82
What topic does the case of R v Hinks 2000 relate to?
Theft -even a gift without deception can be theft
83
What happened in the case of R v Kelly and Lindsay 1998
Corpses not normally considered property but they can be if they have taken on new attributes such as museum features , medical use etc .
84
What case does this relate to ? Corpses not normally considered property but they can be if they have taken on new attributes such as museum features , medical use etc .
R v Kelly and lindsay 1998
85
What topic does the case of R v Kelly and Lindsay 1998 relate to ?
Theft - points of interest body bits and corpses
86
What happened in the case of Atakpu and Abrahams 1994
Ds hired luxury cars in Brussels and Germany using false documents, and brought the cars to the UK - they were arrested in Dover. The moment of appropriation was when they obtained the cars, so the theft was completed outside the jurisdiction of UK courts; appropriation couldn't be a continuing act.
87
What case is this ? Ds hired luxury cars in Brussels and Germany using false documents, and brought the cars to the UK - they were arrested in Dover. The moment of appropriation was when they obtained the cars, so the theft was completed outside the jurisdiction of UK courts; appropriation couldn't be a continuing act.
Atakpu and Abrahams 1994
88
What topic does the case of Atakpu and Abrahams 1994 relate to ?
theft - appropriation only happens once
89
what happened in the case of Oxford v Moss 1979
D, a student of engineering, took an exam paper with the intention of returning the paper having used the information gained in order to cheat in his exam. The confidential information contained in the paper did not amount to intangible property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968
90
What case is this? D, a student of engineering, took an exam paper with the intention of returning the paper having used the information gained in order to cheat in his exam. The confidential information contained in the paper did not amount to intangible property for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968
Oxford v Moss 1979
91
what topic does the case of Oxford v Moss 1979 relate to ?
theft - other things that can't be stolen.
92
what happened in the case of r v Turner (No2) (1971)
D took his car into a service station for repairs. When he went to pick it up he saw that the car was left outside. He took the car without paying for the spare key. D was liable for theft of his own car since the car was regarded as belonging to the service station as they were in possession and control of it.
93
What case is this ? D took his car into a service station for repairs. When he went to pick it up he saw that the car was left outside. He took the car without paying for the spare key. D was liable for theft of his own car since the car was regarded as belonging to the service station as they were in possession and control of it.
R v Turner (No2) (1971)
94
what topic does this case of R v Turner (No2) (1971) relate to ?
Theft
95
what happened in the case of R (on the application of ricketts) v Basildon magistrates court (2010)
Ricketts had taken bags containing items of property from outside a charity shop and separate items from the charity's bin. He argued the original owners had abandoned them. The court ruled that the goods had not been abandoned as the giver remained the owner until the transfer to the intended party was complete. The items in the shop's bin remained the property of the shop until it was collected. Guilty of theft.
96
what case is this? Ricketts had taken bags containing items of property from outside a charity shop and separate items from the charity's bin. He argued the original owners had abandoned them. The court ruled that the goods had not been abandoned as the giver remained the owner until the transfer to the intended party was complete. The items in the shop's bin remained the property of the shop until it was collected. Guilty of theft.
R (on the application of ricketts) v Basildon magistrates court (2010)
97
what topic does the case of R (on the application of ricketts) v Basildon magistrates court (2010) relate to ?
Theft
98
What happened to the case of R v Webster 2006
D was an army sergeant who had served in Iraq. He was awarded a medal for his service but was mistakenly sent a second medal by the MOD which he then sold on eBay. He was convicted of theft. Conviction upheld as the MOD had retained an equitable (proprietary) interest in the medal.
99
what case is this ? D was an army sergeant who had served in Iraq. He was awarded a medal for his service but was mistakenly sent a second medal by the MOD which he then sold on eBay. He was convicted of theft. Conviction upheld as the MOD had retained an equitable (proprietary) interest in the medal.
R v Webster (2006)
100
what topic does the case of R v Webster 2006 relate to ?
theft
101
what happened in the case of Davidge v Bennett 1984
D received cheques from her flat mates which were to pay for the communal gas bill. D spent the money on Christmas presents and left the flat without paying the gas bill. D was liable for theft as under s 5(3) TA 1968 the cheques had been given with a clear obligation to apply the money for payment of the gas bill.
102
What case is this ? D received cheques from her flat mates which were to pay for the communal gas bill. D spent the money on Christmas presents and left the flat without paying the gas bill. D was liable for theft as under s 5(3) TA 1968 the cheques had been given with a clear obligation to apply the money for payment of the gas bill.
Davidge v Bunnett 1984
103
What topic does the case of Davidge v bunett 1984 relate to ?
Theft
104
what happened in the case of Attorney General's reference (No1 of 1983) (1985)
D had her salary paid into a bank account. Her employer overpaid her £74.74 by mistake. She was charged with theft but acquitted by the jury. The prosecution asked the court of appeal to clarify the law. In this type of case there is an obligation to make restoration. If there is a dishonest intention not to make restoration the case would be theft.
105
what case is this ? D had her salary paid into a bank account. Her employer overpaid her £74.74 by mistake. She was charged with theft but acquitted by the jury. The prosecution asked the court of appeal to clarify the law. In this type of case there is an obligation to make restoration. If there is a dishonest intention not to make restoration the case would be theft.
Attorney general's reference (No1 of 1983) (1985)
106
what topic does the case of Attorney general's reference (No1 of 1983) (1985) relate to ?
Theft
107
what happened in the case of Section 2 (1) (A) R v Holden (1991)
D was charged with the theft of scrap tyres from his employer. He claimed that other people had taken tyres with permission of the supervisor. However taking tyres was a dismissible offence on his employment contract. He was convicted of theft. Conviction quashed as D subjectively believed he had the right to take them.
108
What case is this ? D was charged with the theft of scrap tyres from his employer. He claimed that other people had taken tyres with permission of the supervisor. However taking tyres was a dismissible offence on his employment contract. He was convicted of theft. Conviction quashed as D subjectively believed he had the right to take them.
Section 2 (1) (A) R v Holden (1991)
109
What topic does the case of Section 2 (1) (A) R v Holden (1991) relate to ?
Theft - section 1 (A)
110
what happened in the case of Section 2(1)(a)
R v Robinson (1977) ?
D was owed £7 by V's wife. When he went to collect the money, a fight developed between him and her husband during which a £5 dropped out of the husband's pocket. D kept the £5 note. There was no theft because D had an honest belief he was legally entitled to the money.
111
What case is this ? D was owed £7 by V's wife. When he went to collect the money, a fight developed between him and her husband during which a £5 dropped out of the husband's pocket. D kept the £5 note. There was no theft because D had an honest belief he was legally entitled to the money.
Section 2(1)(a)
R v Robinson (1977)
112
What topic does the case of Section 2(1)(a)
R v Robinson (1977)
relate to ?
Theft - section 1 (a)
113
what happened in the case of R v Small 1987
D noticed an old car parked in the road for some time with the key in the ignition and parts missing. D thought the car had been dumped and decided to get it going and drive it away. His defence to theft was that he believed the car had been abandoned and therefore he had a legal right to take it. D honestly believed he had the legal right to take the car, so was not dishonest.
114
what case is this ? D noticed an old car parked in the road for some time with the key in the ignition and parts missing. D thought the car had been dumped and decided to get it going and drive it away. His defence to theft was that he believed the car had been abandoned and therefore he had a legal right to take it. D honestly believed he had the legal right to take the car, so was not dishonest.
R v Small 1987
115
what topic does the case of R v Small 1987 relate to ?
theft - section 2 (1) (C)
116
what happened in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd 2017
D was using a card technique called edge sorting while gambling giving himself an advantage in order to win. He won £7.7 million, however he refused payment by the casino when they worked out how he had one by checking video footage. Deciding whether or not D's conduct should be considered dishonest should reflect what ordinary, decent people would consider it to be. D does not have to be aware of this.
117
What case is this ? D was using a card technique called edge sorting while gambling giving himself an advantage in order to win. He won £7.7 million, however he refused payment by the casino when they worked out how he had one by checking video footage. Deciding whether or not D's conduct should be considered dishonest should reflect what ordinary, decent people would consider it to be. D does not have to be aware of this.
Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd 2017
118
what topic does the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos Ltd 2017 relate to ?
Theft - MR dishonesty
119
What happened in the case of Barton v Booth 2020 ?
Barton was the owner of a luxury nursing home. Booth was the general manager. For many years the Ds used their positions to groom, defraud and steal from elderly residents obtaining £4 million from their activities.Barton was the owner of a luxury nursing home.The Court of Appeal confirmed that the test for dishonesty in criminal cases was that set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos.
120
What case is this ? Barton was the owner of a luxury nursing home. Booth was the general manager. For many years the Ds used their positions to groom, defraud and steal from elderly residents obtaining £4 million from their activities. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the test for dishonesty in criminal cases was that set out in Ivey v Genting Casinos.
Barton v Booth 2020
121
What topic does the case of Barton v Booth 2020 relate to ?
Theft - MR dishonesty
122
What happened in the case of DPP v Lavender 1994
D removed some doors from a council property that was due for demolition. He installed the doors in his girlfriend's flat which was also owned by the council. D did have the intention to permanently deprive under s 6 (1) as he treated the doors as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights.
123
what case is this ? D removed some doors from a council property that was due for demolition. He installed the doors in his girlfriend's flat which was also owned by the council. D did have the intention to permanently deprive under s 6 (1) as he treated the doors as his own to dispose of regardless of the owner's rights.
DPP v Lavender 1994
124
what topic does the case of DPP v Lavender 1994 relate to ?
Theft
125
What happened in the case of R v Marshall, Coombes and Erin 1998
D had obtained underground tickets from people leaving the underground and sold them on to others. London Underground insisted that they had a right to expect that only the original purchaser would use the ticket. The right was disregarded by D who was convicted of theft . The convictions were upheld. The appellants had intended to treat the tickets as their own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights within the meaning of s 6 .
126
What case is this ?
D had obtained underground tickets from people leaving the underground and sold them on to others. London Underground insisted that they had a right to expect that only the original purchaser would use the ticket. The right was disregarded by D who was convicted of theft . The convictions were upheld. The appellants had intended to treat the tickets as their own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights within the meaning of s 6 .
127
What topic does the case of R v Marshall, Coombes and Erin 1998 relate to ?
Theft
128
What happened in the case of R v Lloyd, Bhuee and Ali 1985 ?
D worked at a cinema and removed films so that pirate copies could be made. The copying process took a few hours, after which the films were returned. He appealed against his conviction for theft on the basis that he intended only temporary deprivation. CA allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.
129
What case is this ? D worked at a cinema and removed films so that pirate copies could be made. The copying process took a few hours, after which the films were returned. He appealed against his conviction for theft on the basis that he intended only temporary deprivation. CA allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.
R v Lloyd, Bhuee and Ali 1985
130
What topic does the case of R v Lloyd, Bhuee and Ali 1985 relate to ?
Theft
131
What happened in the case of R v Easom 1971
D picked up a handbag, rummaged through it and then returned it without having taken anything. His conviction for theft of the handbag and its contents was quashed. There was no evidence that D had intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag or items in it so he could not be guilty of theft.
132
What case is this ? D picked up a handbag, rummaged through it and then returned it without having taken anything. His conviction for theft of the handbag and its contents was quashed. There was no evidence that D had intended to permanently deprive the owner of the bag or items in it so he could not be guilty of theft.
R v Easom 1971
133
What topic does the case of R v Easom 1971 relate to ?
theft - conditional intent to permanently deprive.
134
What happened in the case of R v Ryan 1996 ?
Burgular D became trapped with his head and right arm inside the house when trying to enter and had to be freed by the fire brigade. The court of appeals upheld his conviction and the court believed that he had made an 'effective' if not complete entry.
135
What case is this ?Burgular D became trapped with his head and right arm inside the house when trying to enter and had to be freed by the fire brigade. The court of appeals upheld his conviction and the court believed that he had made an 'effective' if not complete entry.
R v Ryan 1996
136
What topic does the case of R v Ryan 1996 relate to ?
Burglary AR - entry
137
What was stated in the case of Stevens v Gourley 1985 ?
'a structure of a considerable size and intended to be permenant or at least to endure for a considerable time'.
138
What topic does the case of Stevens v Gourley 1985 relate to ?
Burglary - AR - non typical structures
139
What happened in the case of B and S v Leathley 1979 ?
A 25 foot long freezer container had been kept as a storage unit in a farmyard for over two years. It rested on sleepers, had doors with locks and was connected to the electricity supply.
It was held to be a building.
140
What case is this ? A 25 foot long freezer container had been kept as a storage unit in a farmyard for over two years. It rested on sleepers, had doors with locks and was connected to the electricity supply.
It was held to be a building.
B and S v Leathley 1979
141
What topic does the case of B and S v Leathley relate to ?
Burglary - AR - Building or part of a building
142
What happened in the case of Norflok Constabulary v Seekings and Gould 1986 ?
A lorry trailer with wheels had been used for over a year for storage. It had steps up to it and was connected to the electricity supply. It was held not to be a building as it still had wheels so therefore still remained a vehicle.
143
What case is this ? A lorry trailer with wheels had been used for over a year for storage. It had steps up to it and was connected to the electricity supply. It was held not to be a building as it still had wheels so therefore still remained a vehicle.
Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986)
144
What topic does the case of Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986) relate to ?
burglary - AR - building or part of a building
145
What happened in the case of R v Walkington 1979 ?
D went behind a shop counter and interfered with the till. He argued that he was not liable for burglary as he had not formed the intention to steal before entering the shop and that the till area was not a separate part of the building. A part go a building is determined by physical separation such as rooms or barriers such as a counter. Conviction for burglary upheld.
146
What case is this ? D went behind a shop counter and interfered with the till. He argued that he was not liable for burglary as he had not formed the intention to steal before entering the shop and that the till area was not a separate part of the building. A part go a building is determined by physical separation such as rooms or barriers such as a counter. Conviction for burglary upheld.
R v Walkington 1979
147
what topic does the case of R v Walkington 1979 relate to ?
Burglary - AR - building or part of a building.
148
What happened in the case of R v Collins 1973 ?
D, naked apart from his socks, climbed a ladder and looked through the victim's bedroom window. Assuming it was her BF she beckoned D into the building/room. She realised her mistake during intercourse. He was charged with s 9 burglary which at the time, included the intention to rape. He was found not guilty.
149
What case is this ? D, naked apart from his socks, climbed a ladder and looked through the victim's bedroom window. Assuming it was her BF she beckoned D into the building/room. She realised her mistake during intercourse. He was charged with s 9 burglary which at the time, included the intention to rape. He was found not guilty.
R v Collins 1973
150
What topic does the case of R v Collins 1973 relate to ?
Burglary - AR - as a trespasser.
151
What happened in the case of R v jones and smith 1976 ?
D entered his father's house with a friend to steal two televisions. He had general permission to enter the house and argued that this meant that he was not a trespasser for the purposes of s9 burglary. A person who enters a building for an unlawful purpose will be a trespasser in that building irrespective of any express or implied permission to enter.
152
What case is this ? D entered his father's house with a friend to steal two televisions. He had general permission to enter the house and argued that this meant that he was not a trespasser for the purposes of s9 burglary. A person who enters a building for an unlawful purpose will be a trespasser in that building irrespective of any express or implied permission to enter.
R v Jones and Smith 1976
153
What topic does the case of R v Jones and Smith 1976 relate to ?
Burglary - AR - trespasser
154
What acts are the successes of the law reform commission?
The fraud act 2006
The corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide act 2007
The criminal justice and courts act 2015
155
What is the act relating to sentencing ?
The sentencing act 2020
156
What happened in the case of Agricultural Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms 1972 ?
The Secretary of State proposed to introduce new regulations for the training of agricultural workers. The enabling act required consultation with mushroom growers. The Secretary of State sent a notice inviting representations from a body representing the mushroom growing industry, but the letter was not received. The regulation was made without consultation.Held: Having decided that the industry representative should be consulted, the Secretary could not go ahead without doing so. The regulations were ultra vires and not binding on the defendant
157
What case is this ? The Secretary of State proposed to introduce new regulations for the training of agricultural workers. The enabling act required consultation with mushroom growers. The Secretary of State sent a notice inviting representations from a body representing the mushroom growing industry, but the letter was not received. The regulation was made without consultation.Held: Having decided that the industry representative should be consulted, the Secretary could not go ahead without doing so. The regulations were ultra vires and not binding on the defendant.
Agricultural Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms 1972
158
What topic does the case of Agricultural Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms 1972 relate to ?
Delegated legislation - procedural ultra vires
159
What happened in the case of R v Home Secretary exparte Fire Brigades Union 1995 ?
The Home Secretary made changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme by awarding less compensation. Held :The Court held that the Home Secretary has gone beyond the delegated powers given to him under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and that his action was ultra vires.
160
What case is this ? The Home Secretary made changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme by awarding less compensation. Held:The Court held that the Home Secretary has gone beyond the delegated powers given to him under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and that his action was ultra vires.
R v Home secretary exparte Fire brigades union 1995
161
What topic does the case of R v Home secretary exparte Fire brigades union 1995 relate to ?
Delegated legislation - substantive ultra vires
162
What happened in the case of R (Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care trust 2006 ?
The NHS refused to provide a woman with breast cancer her prescribed drugs (which was non-approved). However, it did provide the same drug to other patients in its area.
Held: The decision was found to be unreasonable and ultra vires
163
What case is this ? The NHS refused to provide a woman with breast cancer her prescribed drugs (which was non-approved). However, it did provide the same drug to other patients in its area.
Held: The decision was found to be unreasonable and ultra vires.
R (Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust (2006)
164
What topic does the case of R (Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust (2006) relate to ?
Delegated legislation - Wednesbury unreasonableness
165
What happened in the case of Strickland v Hayes 1896 ?
Acting under the Local Government Act 1888, Worcestershire CC made it an offence to sing or recite any profane or obscene song, or to use any profane or obscene language "in any street or public place or on land adjacent thereto".Held :Quashing A's conviction as it was unreasonable. The court said this went beyond the scope of the parent Act (which was concerned with the prevention of annoyance to others) and was consequently ultra vires (invalid), even though in the instant case A had been speaking on a public footpath surrounded by many other people.
166
What case is this ? Acting under the Local Government Act 1888, Worcestershire CC made it an offence to sing or recite any profane or obscene song, or to use any profane or obscene language "in any street or public place or on land adjacent thereto".Held: Quashing A's conviction as it was unreasonable. The court said this went beyond the scope of the parent Act (which was concerned with the prevention of annoyance to others) and was consequently ultra vires (invalid), even though in the instant case A had been speaking on a public footpath surrounded by many other people.
Strickland v Hayes 1896
167
What topic does the case of Strickland v Hayes 1896 relate to ?
Delegated legislation - Wednesbury unreasonableness.
168
What happened in the case of R v Marchant and Muntz 2003 ?
D was driving a vehicle with long spikes for moving hay and stopped waiting to make a turn. V, a motorcyclist collided with the vehicle and was impaled on the spikes. V later then died. D was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Convictions were quashed by COA. As there was no dangerous driving so therefore there was no crime.
169
What case is this ? D was driving a vehicle with long spikes for moving hay and stopped waiting to make a turn. V, a motorcyclist collided with the vehicle and was impaled on the spikes. V later then died. D was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Convictions were quashed by COA. As there was no dangerous driving so therefore there was no crime.
R v Marchant and Muntz 2003
170
What topic does the case of R v Marchant and Muntz 2003 relate to ?
AR and causation - Consequence crimes
171
What happened in the case of R v Mitchell 1983 ?
D tried to push his way into a queue at the post office. A 72 year old man told him off and D punched the man causing him to stagger backwards into an 89 year old woman (V). V was knocked over and later died from her injuries. Holding: D was convicted of the Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM). The man D had punched and who fell into V was not liable for any criminal act.
172
what case is this ? D tried to push his way into a queue at the post office. A 72 year old man told him off and D punched the man causing him to stagger backwards into an 89 year old woman (V). V was knocked over and later died from her injuries. Holding: D was convicted of the Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM). The man D had punched and who fell into V was not liable for any criminal act.
R v Mitchell 1983
173
What topic does the case of R v Mitchell 1983 relate to ?
AR and causation - Voluntary nature of AR
174
What happened in the case of R v Larsonneur 1933 ?
D was deported to the uk against her will and then arrested. She was convicted because she was “found” in the UK without permission, even though this was not voluntary.
Holding :She was convicted because she was refused leave to land and was found in the UK. It did not matter that it was against her will.
175
What case is this ? D was deported to the uk against her will and then arrested. She was convicted because she was “found” in the UK without permission, even though this was not voluntary.Holding :She was convicted because she was refused leave to land and was found in the UK. It did not matter that it was against her will.
R v Larsonneur 1933
176
What topic does the case of R v Larsonneur 1933 relate to ?
AR and causation - 'state of affairs' crimes - absolute liability cases.
177
What happened in the case of Wiznar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) ?
D was taken to hospital. Doctors found that he was not ill but was drunk. D was told to leave the hospital but was later found slumped on a seat in a corridor. The police were called and they took D to the roadway outside. They realised he was drunk so they charged him with being found drunk in a highway contrary to s 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. Holding:Conviction upheld, even though D was not on the roadway voluntarily.
178
What case is this ? D was taken to hospital. Doctors found that he was not ill but was drunk. D was told to leave the hospital but was later found slumped on a seat in a corridor. The police were called and they took D to the roadway outside. They realised he was drunk so they charged him with being found drunk in a highway contrary to s 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. Holding:Conviction upheld, even though D was not on the roadway voluntarily.
Wiznar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)
179
What topic does the case of Wiznar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) relate to ?
AR and causation - 'state of affairs' crimes - absolute liability cases.
180
What happened in the case of R v Gibbins and Proctor 1918 ?
Father of a 7 year old girl lived with a partner. He had several other children but kept the girl seperate and deliberately starved her to death. Both the Father and the partner were convicted of murder.Holding :Father had a duty to feed the child because he was her parent and the mistress had undertaken to look after the children including the girl so also had a duty to feed her.
181
What case is this ? Father of a 7 year old girl lived with a partner. He had several other children but kept the girl seperate and deliberately starved her to death. Both the Father and the partner were convicted of murder.Holding :Father had a duty to feed the child because he was her parent and the mistress had undertaken to look after the children including the girl so also had a duty to feed her.
R v Gibbins and Proctor 1918
182
What topic does the case of R v Gibbins and Proctor 1918 relate to ?
AR and casuation - Duty created by a special relationship
183
what happened in the case of R v Stone and dobinson 1977 ?
D1’s elderly sister (V) came to live with D1 and D2. V often stayed in her room for several days and failed to eat. She eventually became bedridden and incapable of caring for herself. On at least one occasion D2 helped to wash and prepare food for V. V died from malnutrition and both D1 and D2 were found guilty of manslaughter
Holding :D1 owed a duty of care to his sister. D2 had undertaken some care of V and therefore also owed a duty of care. This duty was to either help V themselves or summon help. Their failure (omission) to do so meant there were in breach of that duty.
184
What case is this ? D1’s elderly sister (V) came to live with D1 and D2. V often stayed in her room for several days and failed to eat. She eventually became bedridden and incapable of caring for herself. On at least one occasion D2 helped to wash and prepare food for V. V died from malnutrition and both D1 and D2 were found guilty of manslaughter
Holding :D1 owed a duty of care to his sister. D2 had undertaken some care of V and therefore also owed a duty of care. This duty was to either help V themselves or summon help. Their failure (omission) to do so meant there were in breach of that duty.
R v Stone and dobinson 1977
185
What topic does the case of R v Stone and dobinson 1977 relate to ?
AR and causation - Duty Voluntarily undertaken
186
What happened in the case of R v Dytham 1979 ?
D was a police officer who was on duty. He saw V being thrown out of a nightclub near were he was standing. There was a fight in which three men kicked V to death. D took no steps to intervene or summon help and told a bystander that he was off duty and left the scene. He was convicted of misconduct in a public office.
Holding :Because D was a police officer, he was guilty of willfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty.
187
What case is this ? D was a police officer who was on duty. He saw V being thrown out of a nightclub near were he was standing. There was a fight in which three men kicked V to death. D took no steps to intervene or summon help and told a bystander that he was off duty and left the scene. He was convicted of misconduct in a public office. Holding :Because D was a police officer, he was guilty of willfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty.
R v Dytham (1979)
188
What topic does the case of R v Dytham (1979) relate to ?
AR and causation - Duty from an official position.
189
What happened in the case of R v miller 1983 ?
D was living in a squat and fell asleep with a smoking cigarette. He awoke to find the mattress on fire. D did not attempt to put out the fire or summon help and instead went to another room to go back to sleep. The house caught fire and D was convicted of arson
Holding : It was not setting the mattress on fire that was arson (since this was accidental), but rather that D failed to take reasonable steps to deal with the fire once he discovered that the mattress was on fire. This failure (omission) meant he had committed the actus reus for arson.
190
What case is this ? D was living in a squat and fell asleep with a smoking cigarette. He awoke to find the mattress on fire. D did not attempt to put out the fire or summon help and instead went to another room to go back to sleep. The house caught fire and D was convicted of arson
Holding : It was not setting the mattress on fire that was arson (since this was accidental), but rather that D failed to take reasonable steps to deal with the fire once he discovered that the mattress was on fire. This failure (omission) meant he had committed the actus reus for arson.
R v Miller 1983
191
What happened in the case of DPP v Santa - Bermudez ?
Policewoman (v), before searching D’s pockets , asked them sked him if he had any needles or other sharp objects on him. D said ‘no’ but when V put her hand in the pocket she was injured by a needle. D was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Holding
Failure to tell V of the needle when asked made D criminally liable. D knew there was a danger to V but failed to warn her which was enough for the actus reus for the purposes of assault causing actual bodily hard.
192
What case is this ? Policewoman (V), before searching D’s pockets, asked him if he had any needles or other sharp objects on him. D said ‘no’ but when V put her hand in the pocket she was injured by a needle. D was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Holding
Failure to tell V of the needle when asked made D criminally liable. D knew there was a danger to V but failed to warn her which was enough for the actus reus for the purposes of assault causing actual bodily hard.
DPP v Santa - Bermudez.
193
What topic does the case of DPP v Santa - Bermudez 2003 ?
Duty from setting events in motion - AR and Causation.
194
What happened in the cases of Airedale NHS trust v Bland 1993 ?
Bland was a young man who was crushed by the crowd during the Hillsborough disaster. This had stopped oxygen from reaching his brain and he was severely brain damaged and in a persistent vegetative state, unable to do anything for himself and unaware of his surroundings. He had been in this state for 3 years when doctors asked for permission to stop feeding him. The Court ruled that the doctors could stop
Holding
Even though it was known that V would die as a result of the doctors not feeding him, it was held that this was in V’s best interest and therefore was not actus reus for murder.
195
What case is this ? Bland was a young man who was crushed by the crowd during the Hillsborough disaster. This had stopped oxygen from reaching his brain and he was severely brain damaged and in a persistent vegetative state, unable to do anything for himself and unaware of his surroundings. He had been in this state for 3 years when doctors asked for permission to stop feeding him. The Court ruled that the doctors could stop
Holding
Even though it was known that V would die as a result of the doctors not feeding him, it was held that this was in V’s best interest and therefore was not actus reus for murder.
Airedale NHS trust v Bland 1993
196
What topic does the case of Airedale NHS trust v Bland 1993 relate to ?
special circumstances - omissions and the duty of doctors - AR and causation.
197
What happened in the case of R v White 1910 ?
D put some poison in his mother’s milk with the intention of killing her. The mother (V) took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up. Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison.
Holding
The court asked, “But for D’s actions, would his mother have died?” Since she would have died anyway, he was not the factual cause of her death.
D was not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He was liable for attempt.
198
What case is this ? D put some poison in his mother’s milk with the intention of killing her. The mother (V) took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up. Medical reports revealed that she died from a heart attack and not the poison.
Holding
The court asked, “But for D’s actions, would his mother have died?” Since she would have died anyway, he was not the factual cause of her death.
D was not liable for her murder as his act of poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He was liable for attempt.
factual causation - The 'but for' test. And it established the test. AR and causation.
199
What happened in the case of R v page 1983 ?
D took his pregnant girlfriend (V) as a hostage. D used her as a shield in a shootout, leading to her death as she was shot by the police. D was convicted of manslaughter.
Holding
The court asked, “But for D’s actions, would she have been shot?” The answer was no, as her death directly resulted from his actions.
D was guilty because V would not have died ‘but for’ D using her as a shield in the shoot-out.
200
What case is this ? D took his pregnant girlfriend (V) as a hostage. D used her as a shield in a shootout, leading to her death as she was shot by the police. D was convicted of manslaughter.
Holding
The court asked, “But for D’s actions, would she have been shot?” The answer was no, as her death directly resulted from his actions.
D was guilty because V would not have died ‘but for’ D using her as a shield in the shoot-out.
R v Pagett 1983
201
What topic does the use of R v Pagett 1983 relate to ?
Factual causation - the 'but for' test - AR and causation.
202
What happened in the case of R v Smith 1959 ?
facts: A soldier was stabbed and, despite being dropped on the way to treatment and receiving poor medical care, later died from his wounds.Legal Causation: The stabbing was deemed an 'operative and substantial' cause of death, as it was a more than minimal factor, remaining significant despite the intervening events.Outcome: D was held criminally liable for the death.
203
What cases this ? facts: A soldier was stabbed and, despite being dropped on the way to treatment and receiving poor medical care, later died from his wounds.Legal Causation: The stabbing was deemed an 'operative and substantial' cause of death, as it was a more than minimal factor, remaining significant despite the intervening events.Outcome: D was held criminally liable for the death.
R v Smith 1959
204
What topic does the case of R v Smith 1959 relate to ?
Legal casuation - AR and causation.
205
What happened in the case of R v Kimsey 1996 ?
facts: During a high-speed car chase, Kimsey lost control of her car, leading to a fatal crash.Legal Causation: Kimsey's driving was found to be an 'operative and substantial' cause of death, as it was a more than minimal factor in the crash.Outcome: Kimsey was held criminally liable for causing the fatality in the crash.
206
What case is this ? facts: During a high-speed car chase, Kimsey lost control of her car, leading to a fatal crash.Legal Causation: Kimsey's driving was found to be an 'operative and substantial' cause of death, as it was a more than minimal factor in the crash.Outcome: Kimsey was held criminally liable for causing the fatality in the crash.
R v Kimsey 1996
207
What topic does the case of R v Kimsey 1996 relate to ?
Legal causation - AR and causation.
208
What happened in the case of R v Blaue 1975 ?
V was stabbed by D. She needed a blood transfusion to save her life, but refused as she was a Jehovah’s witness and her religion forbid blood transfusions. V died and D was convicted for her murder
Holding
Despite the fact that V was a Jehovah’s witness meaning the wound was fatal, D was still guilty because he had to take his victim as he found them.
209
What case is this ? V was stabbed by D. She needed a blood transfusion to save her life, but refused as she was a Jehovah’s witness and her religion forbid blood transfusions. V died and D was convicted for her murder
Holding
Despite the fact that V was a Jehovah’s witness meaning the wound was fatal, D was still guilty because he had to take his victim as he found them.
R v Blaue 1975
210
What topic does the case of R v Blaue relate to ?
the thin skull rule - AR and causation.
211
What happened in the case of R v Smith 1959 ?
Two soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung. V was carried to the medical centre but was dropped on the way. At the medical centre staff gave V artificial respiration by pressing on his chest. This made the injury worse and V died. Poor treatment probably affected his chances of recovery by as much as 75%.
Holding
D would be guilty of murder. The original injury was still an operating and substantial cause of death despite poor treatment—no break in chain of causation.
212
What case is this ? Two soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung. V was carried to the medical centre but was dropped on the way. At the medical centre staff gave V artificial respiration by pressing on his chest. This made the injury worse and V died. Poor treatment probably affected his chances of recovery by as much as 75%.
Holding
D would be guilty of murder. The original injury was still an operating and substantial cause of death despite poor treatment—no break in chain of causation.
R v Smith 1959.
213
What topic does the case of R v Smith 1959 relate to ?
Act of a third party - medical treatment
AR and causation.
214
What happened in the case of R v Cheshire 1991 ?
D shot V during the course of an argument. V was taken to hospital to have surgery and shortly after developed respiratory issues. The doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube, which remained in place for four weeks and initially improved V’s condition. Several days later V’s condition worsened and he died shortly afterwards. The post-mortem found that the V’s windpipe had narrowed near the location where the tracheotomy pipe had been inserted. D was subsequently charged with murder and convicted. The decision was appealed.
Holding
Actions of the doctor not an intervening act which caused the death. D was found not guilty of murder. D’s acts made a ‘significant contribution’ to V’s death. The acts need not be the sole or even main cause of death.
215
What case is this ? D shot V during the course of an argument. V was taken to hospital to have surgery and shortly after developed respiratory issues. The doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube, which remained in place for four weeks and initially improved V’s condition. Several days later V’s condition worsened and he died shortly afterwards. The post-mortem found that the V’s windpipe had narrowed near the location where the tracheotomy pipe had been inserted. D was subsequently charged with murder and convicted. The decision was appealed.
Holding
Actions of the doctor not an intervening act which caused the death. D was found not guilty of murder. D’s acts made a ‘significant contribution’ to V’s death. The acts need not be the sole or even main cause of death.
R v Cheshire 1991
216
What topic does the case of R v Cheshire 1991 relate to ?
act of a third party - medical treatment .
AR and causation.
217
What happened in the case of R v Jordan 1956 ?
V has been stabbed in the stomach by D. He was treated in hospital and the wounds were healing well. He was given an antibiotic but suffered an allergic reaction to it. One doctor stopped the use of the antibiotic but the next day a different doctor ordered that a large dose be given. V died from an allergic reaction to the drug
Holding
Actions of the doctor were an intervening act which caused the death. D was found not guilty of murder. The fact that a large amount of the drug was given when doctors knew that V was allergic was a sufficiently independent act to break the chain of causation.
218
What case is this ? V has been stabbed in the stomach by D. He was treated in hospital and the wounds were healing well. He was given an antibiotic but suffered an allergic reaction to it. One doctor stopped the use of the antibiotic but the next day a different doctor ordered that a large dose be given. V died from an allergic reaction to the drug
Holding
Actions of the doctor were an intervening act which caused the death. D was found not guilty of murder. The fact that a large amount of the drug was given when doctors knew that V was allergic was a sufficiently independent act to break the chain of causation.
R v Jordan 1956
219
What happened in the case of R v Malcherek (1981) ?
D stabbed his wife (V) in the stomach. In hospital she was put on a life support machine. After a number of tests showed that she was brain dead, the machine was switched off. D was charged with her murder
Holding
The trial judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to the jury. D was convicted and the CoA upheld the conviction.
220
What case is this ? D stabbed his wife (V) in the stomach. In hospital she was put on a life support machine. After a number of tests showed that she was brain dead, the machine was switched off. D was charged with her murder
Holding
The trial judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to the jury. D was convicted and the CoA upheld the conviction.
R v Malecherek (1981)
221
What topic does the case of R v Malcherek (1981) relate to ?
AR and Causation - medical treatment and life support machines.
222
What happened in the case of R v Roberts (1972) ?
V jumped from a car in order to escape from D’s sexual advances. The car was travelling at between 20 and 40 mph and V was injured by jumping from it
Holding
D was held liable for V’s injuries as V’s actions were a foreseeable consequence of D’s action.
223
What case is this ? V jumped from a car in order to escape from D’s sexual advances. The car was travelling at between 20 and 40 mph and V was injured by jumping from it
Holding
D was held liable for V’s injuries as V’s actions were a foreseeable consequence of D’s action.
R v Roberts (1972)
224
What topic does the case of R v Roberts (1972) relate to ?
AR and causation - victim's own act - 'Escape cases'.
225
What happened in the case of R v Williams and Davis (1992)?
D picked up a V (a hitchhiker). V jumped out of the car when it was travelling at 30 mph, hit his head and died. The prosecution alleged that D were attempting to steal V’s wallet and that was the reason V jumped out of the car, so D’s actions amounted to Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM). D were found guilty
Holding
Conviction was quashed by the CoA who held that V’s act had to be foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to the threat.
226
What case is this ? D picked up a V (a hitchhiker). V jumped out of the car when it was travelling at 30 mph, hit his head and died. The prosecution alleged that D were attempting to steal V’s wallet and that was the reason V jumped out of the car, so D’s actions amounted to Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM). D were found guilty
Holding
Conviction was quashed by the CoA who held that V’s act had to be foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to the threat.
R v Williams and Davis (1992)
227
What topic does the case of R v Williams and Davis (1992) ?
AR and Causation - Victim's own act - 'Escape cases'
228
What happened in the case of R v Mohan (1976) ?
In this case, D accelerated his car towards a police officer who was signalling him to stop. Although he didn’t succeed in harming the officer, his actions demonstrated a clear intent.
229
