Cases

Question 1

EN - R v Evans

Answer 1

Duty of care for creation of a dangerous situation

Question 2

EN - R v Jogee

Answer 2

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

Question 3

EN - Caldwell

Answer 3

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

Question 4

EN - R v G

Answer 4

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

Question 5

EN - Lewin v Crown Prosecutor

Answer 5

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

Question 6

EN - R v Wacker

Answer 6

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

Question 7

EN - R v Dudley and Stephens

Answer 7

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

Question 8

EN - R v Roberts

Answer 8

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

Question 9

EN - R v Kennedy

Answer 9

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

Question 10

EN - R v Pagett

Answer 10

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

Question 11

EN - R v Michael

Answer 11

The defendant was convicted for perpetration by means

Question 12

EN - R v Hood

Answer 12

Spouses have a duty to offer medical assistance when in need

Question 13

EN - R v Cunningham

Answer 13

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

Question 14

EN - R v Proctors and Gibbins

Answer 14

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

Question 15

EN - R v Adomako

Answer 15

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

Question 16

EN - Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Answer 16

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

Question 17

NL - Samir A

Answer 17

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

Question 18

NL - HIV case

Answer 18

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

Question 19

NL - Jomanda

Answer 19

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

Question 20

GR - Dennis case

Answer 20

Parents have a legal duty to protect their children

Question 21

ECHR - Gäfgen v Germany

Answer 21

Torture is never allowed (ECtHR case law)

Question 22

Brain Tumour Paedophile

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Kitty Genovese

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Jean Charles de Menezes

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Kenneth Parks Case

Answer 25

Liability cannot arise from involuntary acts