Cases Flashcards Preview

SCL 2 > Cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Cases Deck (25):

EN - R v Evans

Duty of care for creation of a dangerous situation


EN - R v Jogee

Foreseeability is no longer enough to be held liable under joint criminal enterprise. Intent is required.


EN - Caldwell

Objective definition of recklessness - Not only awareness of the risk, but also the failure to foresee an obvious risk


EN - R v G

Switch from Caldwell - Subjective definition of recklessness - Must be aware of the risk taken


EN - Lewin v Crown Prosecutor

The establishment of a duty of care for creation of a dangerous situation requires foreseeability


EN - R v Wacker

The joint involvement in criminal activity does not negate a duty of care


EN - R v Dudley and Stephens

Necessity is not a defence against murder – The courts cannot weigh the value of lives


EN - R v Roberts

Where the victim's actions were a natural result of the defendant's actions it matters not whether the defendant could foresee the result. Only where the victim’s actions were so daft or unexpected that no reasonable man could have expected it would there be a break in the chain of causation


EN - R v Kennedy

If the drug was administrated by a fully-informed and responsible adult, the individual present at the time the drug was taken cannot be liable


EN - R v Pagett

The police firing back and shooting someone constitutes self-defence and does not break the chain of causation


EN - R v Michael

The defendant was convicted for perpetration by means


EN - R v Hood

Spouses have a duty to offer medical assistance when in need


EN - R v Cunningham

Malicious means either
(1) An actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done; or
(2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not


EN - R v Proctors and Gibbins

Gibbins - As the father, he had a legal duty to provide care for the child

Proctors - Was asked to care for the child  Breached that duty


EN - R v Adomako

Gross negligence manslaughter requires: a duty of care based on the tort of negligence; a breach which caused death and a breach which was serious enough to be a crime


EN - Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Treatment necessary to sustain the life of a patient which cannot give consent may be withdrawn if it is in the best interest of the patient


NL - Samir A

The court must assess whether the objects seized, separate or together, by their outward manifestation, can be suitable for the criminal purpose the defendant had in using them


NL - HIV case

Unprotected sexual intercourse only brings about a considerable chance of contamination under certain risk-increasing circumstances


NL - Jomanda

To establish whether there was a breach of a duty of care, one must compare with a reasonable person from the same profession


GR - Dennis case

Parents have a legal duty to protect their children


ECHR - Gäfgen v Germany

Torture is never allowed (ECtHR case law)


Brain Tumour Paedophile

The defendant was acquitted after it was discovered his tumour was the cause for his paedophiliac conduct


Kitty Genovese

Was murdered whilst many witnesses heard/saw the event and did not react  Bystander effect


Jean Charles de Menezes

No violation of Art. 2 ECHR (right to life)  Because insufficient evidence


Kenneth Parks Case

Liability cannot arise from involuntary acts