Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A*LAW-Cases! > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

What happened in the case of Prince in strict liability

A

D knew the girl was in her fathers possession but that was not 18. Guilty of strict liability for the aspect if age. Mens rea not required.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

D knew the girl was in her fathers possession but that was 18. Guilty of strict liability for the aspect if age. Mens rea not required.
What case is this under which topic?

A

Prince- strict liability, mens rea not needed for part of the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Which topic is Prince under?

A

strict liability, mens rea not needed for part of the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What happened in the case of Hibbert?

A

D not guilty of having sex with 14 year old as D did not know girl was in the custody of her father. Age aspect is one of strict liability but offence OAPA.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What happened in the case of Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News?

A

homosexual acts done to Jesus’ birthday after his crucifixion. Guilty of blasphemy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the 4 factors in Gammon v Attorney General of Hong Kong?

A
  1. Presumption of mens rea can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words of the statute
  2. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character
  3. The presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety
  4. strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent prohibited act
  5. statute
  6. truly criminal
  7. social concern
  8. vigilance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q
  1. Presumption of mens rea can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words of the statute
  2. The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is truly criminal in character
  3. The presumption can only be displaced if the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern such as public safety
  4. strict liability should only apply if it will help enforce the law by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent prohibited act
  5. statute
  6. truly criminal
  7. social concern
  8. vigilance

What is the long name of the case which sets these rules from the Privy Council?

A

Gammon v Attorney General of Hong Kong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What happened in the case of Alphacell under the topic of strict liability-quasi-criminal offence?

A

Company was charged with causing pollution contrary to the Rivers Act. No evidence that the company polluted it purposefully. It was of the upmost public importance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

homosexual acts done to Jesus’ birthday after his crucifixion. Guilty of blasphemy.
What case is this under which topic?

A

Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News-Strict liability in common law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Company was charged with causing pollution contrary to the Rivers Act. No evidence that the company polluted it purposefully. It was of the upmost public importance
What case is this under which topic?

A

Alphacell- Quasi-criminal offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What happened in the case of B v DPP under strict liability, penalty of imprisonment?

A

15 year old asked 13 year old for a oral sex contrary to the Children Act. HOL quashed as needed mens rea for offence which held 2 years imprisonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

15 year old asked 13 year old for a oral sex contrary to the Children Act. HOL quashed as needed mens rea for offence which held 2 years imprisonment
What case is this under which topic?

A

B v DPP under strict liability, penalty of imprisonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happened in the case of Blake under issues of social concern, strict liability?

A

D was a disc jokey who did not know they were transmitting illegally. Convicted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

D was a disc jokey who did not know they were transmitting illegally. Convicted.
What case is this under which topic?

A

Blake

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What case comes under strict liability, promoting enforcement of the law?

A

Lim Chin Aik v The Queen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What happened in the case of Lim Chin Aik v The Queen under strict liability, promoting enforcement of the law?

A

D was convicted for entering Singapore when he should not have even though he had no knowledge that he was prohibited. Offence is not strict liability if its imposition did not assist the enforcement of regulations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

D was convicted for entering Singapore when he should not have even though he had no knowledge that he was prohibited. Offence is not strict liability if its imposition did not assist the enforcement of regulations
What case is this under which topics?

A

Lim Chin Aik v The Queen

strict liability, promoting enforcement of the law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is a case where D is guilty even though unaware of risk under strict liability?

A

Environment Agency v Empress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What happened in the case of Environment Agency v Empress under strict liability, guilty even though unaware of risk?

A

D could only escape liability if he could show that the occurrence of his business was ‘abnormal and extraordinary’ rather than a normal fact of life. in this case there was a leakage caused by defective valve. Guilty as was a fact of life.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

D could only escape liability if he could show that the occurrence of his business was ‘abnormal and extraordinary’ rather than a normal fact of life. in this case there was a leakage caused by defective valve. Guilty as was a fact of life.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Environment Agency v Empress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What happened in the case of R v G under, contrary to Human Rights, Strict liability?

A

G was 15 who had sex with 12, believing she was 15. Advised to plead guilty as belief of age not relevant. No breach of Art 6.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

G was 15 who had sex with 12, believing she was 15. Advised to plead guilty as belief of age not relevant. No breach of Art 6.
Whatcase is this under which topics?

A

R v G

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What happened in the case of Attorney General’s reference 1993 under more than merely preparatory?

A

D dragged a girl to the shed, lowered his trousers, interfered with her private parts. Penis remained flaccid. Argued not an attempt. Held it was an attempt, though if he had only dragged her to the steps, this would not have been

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

D dragged a girl to the shed, lowered his trousers, interfered with her private parts. Penis remained flaccid. Argued not an attempt. Held it was an attempt, though if he had only dragged her to the steps, this would not have been
What case is this and from which topic?

A

Attempts, more than merely preparatory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What were the 2 questions raised in Geddes, mere preparation, attempts?

A
  1. Had the defendant moved from planning to execution?

2. Had D done an act which showed that he was trying to commit the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What happened in the case of Attorney General’s reference 1994, recklessness, attempts?

A

D threw a petrol bomb at a car of people, though it missed. not guilty as trial judge directed wrongly. It was necessary to prove that D intended to damage properly but only reckless as to whether life would be endangered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

D threw a petrol bomb at a car of people, though it missed. not guilty as trial judge directed wrongly. It was necessary to prove that D intended to damage properly but only reckless as to whether life would be endangered
What case is this and from which topic?

A

recklessness, attempts-Attorney General’s reference 1994

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What happened in the case of Attorney General’s Reference 1997, Reasonable creature in being, murder?

A

D stabbed his girlfriend who was heavily pregnant. Baby born alive but died weeks later from the premature birth brought on by wound. HOL said obiter than violence towards a foetus which results in harm suffered after the baby is born can give rise to criminal responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

D stabbed his girlfriend who was heavily pregnant. Baby born alive but died weeks later from the premature birth brought on by wound. HOL said obiter than violence towards a foetus which results in harm suffered after the baby is born can give rise to criminal responsibility
What case is this and from which topic?

A

Attorney General’s Reference 1997

Reasonable creature in being, murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What happened in the case of Beckford?

A

D was a police officer who shot the man who had terrorised his family with a gun, in the back. Not guilty as force was deemed reasonable as D thought the man was armed and genuinely believed he was in danger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

D was a police officer who shot the man who had terrorised his family with a gun, in the back. Not guilty as force was deemed reasonable as D thought the man was armed and genuinely believed he was in danger
What case is this and from which topic?

A

Backfired, reasonable force, law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Under which Act have householder cases been amended to allow more rights to householders when someone has intruded to “grossly disproportionate”?

A

Crime and Courts Act 2013 ammended s.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What happened in the case of inglis under euthansia, Murder?

A

Inglis was mother of V who had suffered from a significant brain disfigurement. D killed V with heroin to stop his pain. Convicted of murder but served a minimum of 5 years as nota dangerous person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Inglis was mother of V who had suffered from a significant brain disfigurement. D killed V with heroin to stop his pain. Convicted of murder but served a minimum of 5 years as nota dangerous person.
What case is this and from which topic?

A

Inglis, euthansia, murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What happened in the case of R v DPP?

A

Mrs Purdy wanted to be assisted by her husabnd inn flying to another control to recieve euthanasia. DPP said that the Code for Crown Proseuctors had to be applied and that each case would be decided on its own merits

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What did the case of Lloyd hold- substantially impaired, DR, Voluntary Manslaughter?

A

that substantial does not mean total, nor does it mean trivial or minimal. It is in-between for the jury to decide. However as it is a question of fact, the judge can withdraw the point from the jury if there is no evidence on which a jury could conclude that Ds mental responsibibly was substantially impaired?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

that substantial does not mean total, nor does it mean trivial or minimal. It is in-between for the jury to decide. However as it is a question of fact, the judge can withdraw the point from the jury if there is no evidence on which a jury could conclude that Ds mental responsibibly was substantially impaired?
What case is this and from which topics?

A

Lloyd substantially impaired, DR, Voluntary Manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What happened in the case of Dowds under DR, intoxication, Voluntary manslaughter?

A

D was a binge drinker who murdered his girlfriend. Acute, voluntary intoxication does not found DR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

D was a binge drinker who murdered his girlfriend. Acute, voluntary intoxication does not found DR
What case is this and from which topics?

A

Dowds DR, intoxication, Voluntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What happened in the case of Dietschmann- intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning, DR, Voluntary manslaughter.

A

D was suffering from an adjustment disorder following the death of his aunty whom he believed V was disrespecting. D was drunk then kicked and killed V. HOl held that even though D is intoxicated, the jury should find him not guilty but instead, guilty of manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

D was suffering from an adjustment disorder following the death of his aunty whom he believed V was disrespecting. D was drunk then kicked and killed V. HOl held that even though D is intoxicated, the jury should find him not guilty but instead, guilty of manslaughter
What case is this under which topics?

A

Dietschmann intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning, DR, Voluntary manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What happened in the case of Hendy- intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning, DR, Voluntary manslaughter.

A

D was intoxicated but there was evidence of underlying brain damage and a psychopathic disorder, conviction thus quashed for manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

D was intoxicated but there was evidence of underlying brain damage and a psychopathic disorder, conviction thus quashed for manslaughter
What case is this under which topics?

A

hendy- intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning, DR, Voluntary manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

D was heavily intoxicated but also suffered from an acute stress disorder when he killed V

A

Robson- intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning, DR, Voluntary manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What happened in the case of Robson- intoxication and a pre-existing abnormality of mental functioning, DR, Voluntary manslaughter.

A

D was heavily intoxicated but also suffered from an acute stress disorder when he killed V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What happened in the case of Tandy under Intoxication due to ADS?

A

D was an alocholic who found out her husband was sexually abusing her daughter. She thus killed her daughter. D convicted as no evidence that her brain was injured/ or that she was drinking involuntarily.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What happened in the case of Wood, Intoxication due to ADS, DR, Voluntary manslaughter.

A

D killed V after he awoke to V performing oral sex on him. Conviction quashed as the judge was wrong to direct the jury that all the drinking had to be involuntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

D killed V after he awoke to V performing oral sex on him. Conviction quashed as the judge was wrong to direct the jury that all the drinking had to be involuntary
What case is this under which topics?

A

WoodIntoxication due to ADS, DR, Voluntary manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What did the case of Stewart 2009 establish underntoxication due to ADS?

A
  1. Was D suffering from an abnormailty of mind? Nature and extent of ADS must be considered
  2. Was D’s abnormality caused by ADS?
  3. Was Ds mental responsibilityy substantially impaired?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q
  1. Was D suffering from an abnormailty of mind? Nature and extent of ADS must be considered
    2.Was D’s abnormality caused by ADS?
    3.Was Ds mental responsibilityy substantially impaired?
    Which case established these rules under which topic?
A

Stewart 2009 establish underntoxication due to ADS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

What happened in the case of Dawes under fear of violence, Loss of Control, voluntary manslaughter?

A

D found his wife cheating on him with another, and stabbed the man. D convicted of murder. D cannot rely on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger (s.55)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

D found his wife cheating on him with another, and stabbed the man. D convicted of murder. D cannot rely on sexual infidelity as a qualifying trigger (s.55)
What case is this under which topic?

A

Dawes, Loss of Control, voluntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

What happened in the case of Zebedee, things said or done s.5(4) Coroners and Justice Act, Loss of Control, Voluntary Manslaughter?

A

D killed his father with alziehmers. D pleaded under things said or done, but this must be of an extremely grave nature and D must have a justifiable sense of being ironed. Neither of which were present.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

D killed his father with alziehmers. D pleaded under things said or done, but this must be of an extremely grave nature and D must have a justifiable sense of being ironed. Neither of which were present.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Zebedee things said or done s.5(4) Coroners and Justice Act, Loss of Control, Voluntary Manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

What happened in the case of Clinton under excluded matters s.55(6), Loss of Control, Voluntary manslaughter?

A

D suffered from depression and was on medication when he killed his wife for having an affair and taunting him about suicide. Conviction quashed as court recognised that sexual infidiclety could not be a qualifying trigger in itself but could be looked at in the context of other factors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

D suffered from depression and was on medication when he killed his wife for having an affair and taunting him about suicide. Conviction quashed as court recognised that sexual infidiclety could not be a qualifying trigger in itself but could be looked at in the context of other factors.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Clinton excluded matters s.55(6), Loss of Control, Voluntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

What happened in the case of Jewell under Loss of Control, voluntary manslaughter?

A

D drove to V’s home and shot him.Judge ruled that this was a planned execution. guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

D drove to V’s home and shot him.Judge ruled that this was a planned execution. guilty
What case is this under which topics?

A

Jewell Loss of Control, voluntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

What happened in the case of Workman, Loss of Control- voluntary manslaughter?

A

COA rejected D’s appeal for murdering his ex-wife as there was no evidence that D lost control.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

COA rejected D’s appeal for murdering his ex-wife as there was no evidence that D lost control.
what case is this under which topics?

A

Workman Loss of Control, voluntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

What happened in the case of Barnsdale-Quean?

A

D strangled V to death, D suggested that V committed self strangulation after attacking him. No evidence of loss of control. Guilty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

D strangled V to death, D suggested that V committed self strangulation after attacking him. No evidence of loss of control. Guilty
What case is this under which topic?

A

Barnsdale-Quean

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

What happened in the case of Ward under loss of control, fear of serious violence, voluntary manslaughter?

A

V physically attacked Ds brother- V was given loss of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

V physically attacked Ds brother- V was given loss of control
What case is this under which topics?

A

Ward fear of serious violence, voluntary manslaughter?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

What happened in the case of Lodge,fear of serious violence, voluntary manslaughter?

A

D killed v who was a small scale drug dealer after V attacked him with a baseball bat. Jury accepted D lost control in response to serious violence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

D killed v who was a small scale drug dealer after V attacked him with a baseball bat. Jury accepted D lost control in response to serious violence.
What case is this and nuder which topic?

A

Lodge, fear of serious violence, voluntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

What happened in the case of Asmelash?

A

D stabbed V whilst intoxicated. Ds intoxication was not a relevant circumstance and should therefore be disregarded.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

D stabbed V whilst intoxicated. Ds intoxication was not a relevant circumstance and should therefore be disregarded.
What case is this and under which topic?

A

Ashmelash

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

What happened in the case of Larkin under Dangerous act, involuntary manslaughter?

A

D threatened another man with a razor, which accidentally cut V who died. D’s actions were unlawful, thus conviction upheld.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

D threatened another man with a razor, which accidentally cut V who died. D’s actions were unlawful, thus conviction upheld.
What case is this and under which topic?

A

Larkin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

What happened in the case of JM and SM under some harm, involuntary manslaughter?

A

Ds caused a fight with a doorman who’s underlying, and unknown artery condition caused him to die. As Ds foresaw some harm, they did not have to foresee a specific type of harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

Ds caused a fight with a doorman who’s underlying, and unknown artery condition caused him to die. As Ds foresaw some harm, it did not matter that death was particularly unforeseeable
What case is this and under which topic?

A

Jm and Sm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

What happened in the case of Cato under causing the death-involuntary manslaughter?

A

D and V injected each other with heroin. V died. D was found guilty contrary to OAPA 1861 through administering a noxious substance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

D and V injected each other with heroin. V died. D was found guilty contrary to OAPA 1861 through administering a noxious substance
What case is this and under which topic?

A

Cato, causing the death, involuntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

What happened int eh case of Dalby?

A

D supplied a drug which V self injected. Conviction quashed as although supplying the drug is an unlawful act, it was the act of injection which caused the death which V did voluntarily

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

D supplied a drug which V self injected. Conviction quashed as although supplying the drug is an unlawful act, it was the act of injection which caused the death which V did voluntarily
What is the case and under what topic?

A

Dalbycausing of the death, involuntary manslaughter?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

What happened in the case of Kennedy under the causing of the death, involuntary manslaughter?

A

D prepared V’s injection, but V self injected. V died but D was found not guilty as supplying the drug is not sufficient to be guilty of the death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

D prepared V’s injection, but V self injected. V died but D was found not guilty as supplying the drug is not sufficient to be guilty of the death
What is this case and under what topic?

A

kennedy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

What happened in the case of Dias under alternative gross neg, involuntary manslaughter ?

A

D was a heroin addict and he and V self injected. D realised V was ill and asked a passer by to call ambulance while he fled. Ds conviction for manslaughter was quashed but COA did suggest that there could be a conviction under gross negligence where a duty of care could be established.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

D was a heroin addict and he and V self injected. D realised V was ill and asked a passer by to call ambulance while he fled. Ds conviction for manslaughter was quashed but COA did suggest that there could be a conviction under gross negligence where a duty of care could be established.
What case is this and under what topic?

A

Dias, altnertaive gross neg, involuntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

What happened in the case of Bateman under gross negligence, involuntary manslaughter ?

A

D was a doctor who failed to send a woman to hospital after her uterus came away. Not guilty as he carried out the same procedures as any doctor would.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

D was a doctor who failed to send a woman to hospital after her uterus came away. Not guilty as he carried out the same procedures as any doctor would.
What case is this under which topic?

A

Bateman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

What happened in the case of Misra and another?

A

Ds, doctors, failed to realised that V had an infection after his surgery to which he later died from. Must consider the risk of death, It is not sufficient ti show a risk of bodily injury or injury to health,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

Ds, doctors, failed to realised that V had an infection after his surgery to which he later died from. Must consider the risk of death, It is not sufficient ti show a risk of bodily injury or injury to health,
What case is this under which topic?

A

Misra and another, risk of death, GN, involuntary manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

What happened in the case of Ireland, AR of assault, Non-fatals?

A

it was held that even silent telephone calls can be an assault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

it was held that even silent telephone calls can be an assault
What case is this under which topic?

A

Ireland, AR of assault, Non-fatals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

What happened in the case of Smith v Chief Superintendant of Working Police Station, Apprehend immediate unlawful force, AR assault, Non-fatals?

A

D stood outside Vs window, though an attack was not immediate, V feared what would happen next which was likely to be of a violent nature. This was sufficiently immediate for the purposes of the offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

D stood outside Vs window, though an attack was not immediate, V feared what would happen next which was likely to be of a violent nature. This was sufficiently immediate for the purposes of the offence
What case is this under which topics?

A

Smith v Chief Superintendant of Working Police Station, Apprehend immediate unlawful force, AR assault, Non-fatals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

What happeneded in the case of Tuberville v Savage under Apprehend immediate unlawful force, AR assault, Non-fatals?

A

D placed one hand on a sword and said if it were not assize time then i would not take such language” Held not to be assault as what he said showed he would not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

D placed one hand on a sword and said if it were not assize time then i would not take such language” Held not to be assault as what he said showed he would not
What case is this under which topics?

A

Apprehend immediate unlawful force, AR assault, Non-fatals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

What happened in the case of Light, under Apprehend immediate unlawful force, AR assault, Non-fatals?

A

D raised a sword above his wife’s head and said if it were not for the police officer outside he would split her head open. This was an assault, his words were not enough to negate the fear

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

D raised a sword above his wife’s head and said if it were not for the police officer outside he would split her head open. This was an assault, his words were not enough to negate the fear
What case is this under which topics?

A

Apprehend immediate unlawful force, AR assault, Non-fatals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

What happened in the case of Wood v DPP under AR Battery, non fatals?

A

V was reported to the police as violent, D a police officer believed V fitted the description and took him by the arm before arrest which was held to be a technical assault (battery)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

V was reported to the police as violent, D a police officer believed V fitted the description and took him by the arm before arrest which was held to be a technical assault (battery)
What happened in this case under which topics?

A

Wood v DPP under AR Battery, Non-fatals?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

What happened in the case of Martin under Indirect act, AR Battery, non-fatals?

A

D placed an iron bar across the doorway of a theatre and switched off the lights. Members of the audience in a panic were resultantly injured

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

D placed an iron bar across the doorway of a theatre and switched off the lights. Members of the audience in a panic were resultantly injured
What happened in this case under which topics?

A

Indirect act, AR Battery, non-fatals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

What happened in the case of K under Indirect Act, AR battery, non-fatals?

A

D was a schoolboy who took acid without permission,and scared he would get caught hide it in a hand dryer. Another pupil was sprayed by it causing s.47 ABH. COA held that common assault could be committed by an indirect act

98
Q

D was a schoolboy who took acid without permission,and scared he would get caught hide it in a hand dryer. Another pupil was sprayed by it causing s.47 ABH. COA held that common assault could be committed by an indirect act
What happened in this case under which acts?

A

Indirect Act, AR battery, non-fatals

99
Q

What happened in Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire under Indirect act, AR battery, Non-fatals?

A

D caused a small child to fall to the floor by punching the woman holding the child. D found guilty as he was reckless as to whether or not his acts would injure the child

100
Q

D caused a small child to fall to the floor by punching the woman holding the child. D found guilty as he was reckless as to whether or not his acts would injure the child
What case is this under which topics?

A

Halstead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Indirect Act, AR battery, non-fatals?

101
Q

What happened in A v UK under unlawful force, AR Battery, Nonfatals?

A

The jury acquitted a father who had beaten his son with a garden cane. The Children Act 2004 now provides that a battery committed on a child is unlawful if it results in any injury

102
Q

The jury acquitted a father who had beaten his son with a garden cane. The Children Act 2004 now provides that a battery committed on a child is unlawful if it results in any injury
What case is this under which topics?

A

A v UK under unlawful force, AR Battery, Nonfatals

103
Q

What happened in the case of DPP v Majewski, Mens rea of Assault and Battery, Non-fatals?

A

D had consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs before attacking the landlord of where he was drinking. D went on to attack the police. Law Lords held that becoming intoxicated was a reckless course of conduct which is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases

104
Q

D had consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs before attacking the landlord of where he was drinking. D went on to attack the police. Law Lords held that becoming intoxicated was a reckless course of conduct which is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases
What case is this under which topics?

A

DPP v Majewski, Mens rea of Assault and Battery, Non-fatals

105
Q

Which case stated that ABH is any hurt of injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim?

A

Miller under ABH AR of s.47, Non fatals?

106
Q

What did the case of Miller state, under ABH AR of s.47, Non fatals?

A

that ABH is any hurt of injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim

107
Q

What was the ratio in T v DPP under ABH AR of s.47, Non fatals?

A

that loss of consciousness, even for a very short time could be ABH

108
Q

What case held that cutting a victims hair can be ABH?

A

DPP v Smith, AR of s.47, ABH, non fatals

109
Q

What happened in the caseDPP v Smith, AR of s.47, ABH, non fatals?

A

D cut his girlfriends pony tail off without her consent. Where the amount of hair removed is substantial this could deb GBH

110
Q

D cut his girlfriends pony tail off without her consent. Where the amount of hair removed is substantial this could deb GBH
What case is this under which topics?

A

DPP v Smith, AR of s.47, ABH, non fatals

111
Q

What happened in the case of Chan Fook under AR of s.47, ABH, non fatals?

A

It was held that psychiatric injury is ABH by the COA, but does not include mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic.

112
Q

It was held that psychiatric injury is ABH by the COA, but does not include mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic
What case is this under which topics?

A

Chan Fook AR of s.47, ABH, non fatals

113
Q

What happened in the case of Burstow under AR of s.47, ABH, non fatals?

A

It was held that bodily harm in s.18, 20 and 47 must be interpreted so as to include recognisable psychiatric illness

114
Q

It was held that bodily harm in s.18, 20 and 47 must be interpreted so as to include recognisable psychiatric illness
what case is this under which topics?

A

Burstow under AR of s.47, ABH, non fatals?

115
Q

What happened in the case of Savage under mens rea of s.47, non fatals?

A

D threw their drink over someone, and in doing so the glass slipped causing s.47 injury. As D intended to throw the drink she had the intention to apply unlawful force which was sufficient for the mens rea of the offence

116
Q

D threw their drink over someone, and in doing so the glass slipped causing s.47 injury. As D intended to throw the drink she had the intention to apply unlawful force which was sufficient for the mens rea of the offence
What case is this under which topics?

A

Savage under mens rea of s.47, non fatals?

117
Q

What happened in the case of Wood 2008 under s.20, malicious wounding/inflicting GBH OAPA, Non fatals?

A

V’s collar bone was broken but as the skin was intact, it was held that there was no wound

118
Q

V’s collar bone was broken but as the skin was intact, it was held that there was no wound
What case is this under which topics?

A

Wood 2008 under s.20, malicious wounding/inflicting GBH OAPA, Non fatals

119
Q

What was held in DPP v Smith, under s.20, malicious wounding/inflicting GBH OAPA, GBH, Non fatals?

A

the GBH means really serious harm, though it does not have to be life threatening

120
Q

What was held in the case of Saunders?

A

it was held that it was permissible to direct a jury that there need be serious harm, not including really

121
Q

it was held that it was permissible to direct a jury that there need be serious harm, not including really
What case is this under which topic?

A

Saunders under s.20, malicious wounding/inflicting GBH OAPA, GBH, Non fatals?

122
Q

What happened in the case of Bollom?

A

D’s conviction of causing GBH to a child was quashed however COA did say that bruising could amount to GBH/

123
Q

D’s conviction of causing GBH to a child was quashed however COA did say that bruising could amount to GBH/
What case is this under which topic?

A

Bollom GBH s.20 Malicious/inflicting GBH

124
Q

What happened in the case of Burstow under GBH s.20 Malicious/inflicting GBH?

A

victim of a stalker suffered severe depression, decided that psychiatric injury can be GBH

125
Q

victim of a stalker suffered severe depression, decided that psychiatric injury can be GBH. ‘inflict’ does not require a technical assault or battery, silent phone calls suffice
What case is this under which topic?

A

Burstow GBH s.20 Malicious/inflicting GBH

126
Q

What happened in the case of Dica under GBH s.20 Malicious/inflicting GBH?

A

First ever conviction for causing GBH through infecting victims with the HIV virus.

127
Q

First ever conviction for causing GBH through infecting victims with the HIV virus.
What case is this under which topic?

A

Dica, GBH s.20 Malicious/inflicting GBH

128
Q

What happened in the case of Lewis, Inflicting GBH, s.20

A

D shouted threats at his wife through a closed door and tried to break in. V jumped from the window and broke both her legs. Threats were a technical assault

129
Q

D shouted threats at his wife through a closed door and tried to break in. V jumped from the window and broke both her legs. Threats were a technical assault
What case is this under which topics?

A

Lewis, Inflicting GBH, s.20

130
Q

Which case confirmed that Cunningham 1957 meant that the meaning of recklessness applied to all offences in which the statutory definition uses the word maliocusly?

A

Parmenter

131
Q

What happened in the case of Parmenter under mens rea of s.20?

A

D did not realise risk of throwing child up in the air. Conviction quashed as no evidence that he foresaw injury, substituted for s.47

132
Q

D did not realise risk of throwing child up in the air. Conviction quashed as no evidence that he foresaw injury, substituted for s.47
What case is this under which topics?

A

Parmenter mens rea s.20

133
Q

What happened in the case of Taylor?

A

COA quashed conviction of D who stabbed V as an intention to wound was not an intention to cause GBH. Substituted for s.20

134
Q

COA quashed conviction of D who stabbed V as an intention to wound was not an intention to cause GBH. Substituted for s.20
What case is this under which topics?

A

Taylor, mens rea s.20

135
Q

What case decided that when resisting arrest under the mens rea of s.18, the prosecution must prove that he had a specific intention to resist or prevent arrest but so far as the injury they need only prove that he was reckless as to whether his actions would cause a wound or injury?

A

Morrison

136
Q

What happened in the case of Morrison under mens rea os s.18?

A

police officer told D he was arrested. D dived through a window, dragging officer with him cause officer to be cut by glass. D must either have intended injury or realised there was a risk of injury as ‘maliciously’ has same meaning as in Cunningham

137
Q

What happened in the case of Donovan under consent as a defence?

A

D caned V for sexual gratification. No offence where V has consented. Conviction quashed

138
Q

What case reflects that the consent must be true?

A

Tabassum

139
Q

What happened in the case of Tabassum under consent as a defence?

A

D pretended to be a medical doctor and inspected their breasts. The fact V’s consented did not make this consent real

140
Q

What happened in the case of Morris under appropriation?

A

D switched labels on two items. He was arrested before reaching the checkout. does not have to be an assumption of all the rights

141
Q

D switched labels on two items. He was arrested before reaching the checkout. does not have to be an assumption of all the rights
What case is this under which topic?

A

Morris under appropriation, theft

142
Q

What happened in the case of Hinks under consent without deception, appropriation, theft?

A

D befriended a man with a low IQ who understood the concept of ownership and gave her £60,000 and a tv set. Even though the property was a valid gift there was still an appropriation as actions were dishonest.

143
Q

D befriended a man with a low IQ who understood the concept of ownership and gave her £60,000 and a tv set. Even though the property was a valid gift there was still an appropriation as actions were dishonest.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Hinks consent without deception, appropriation, theft?

144
Q

What happened in the case of Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Chan-Nai Keung?

A

an export quota for textiles was intangible property which could be stolen.

145
Q

What happened in the case of Turner?

A

D left his car at a garage and used a spare key to take it without paying. Held there was an appropriation because they were in possession of the car.

146
Q

D left his car at a garage and used a spare key to take it without paying. Held there was an appropriation because they were in possession of the car.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Turner, Belonging to another, Theft

147
Q

What happened in the case of Woodman under belonging to another, theft?

A

D took scrap metal from a company’s grounds who were unaware of its existence. Held to be theft as it was within their grounds

148
Q

D took scrap metal from a company’s grounds who were unaware of its existence. Held to be theft as it was within their grounds
What case is this under which topics?

A

Woodman, Belonging to another, theft

149
Q

What happened in the case of Basildon, under belonging to another, theft?

A

D argued it was not theft of charity bags as owner had deserted them. Items were held not to have been abandoned and their delivery would only be complete once the charity accepted.

150
Q

D argued it was not theft of charity bags as owner had deserted them. Items were held not to have been abandoned and their delivery would only be complete once the charity accepted.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Basildon, belonging to another

151
Q

What happened in the case of Hall under Property received under obligation, Beloning to another, theft?

A

D was a travel agent who paid deposits into the firms general account. Tickets never organised but D not guilty as he was not under an obligation to deal with them in a particular way.

152
Q

D was a travel agent who paid deposits into the firms general account. Tickets never organised but D not guilty as he was not under an obligation to deal with them in a particular way.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Hall Property received under obligation, belonging to another, theft

153
Q

What happened in the case of Klineberg and Marsden under Property received under obligation, belonging to another, theft ?

A

Ds operated a company and were convicted of the as they were under an obligation to deal with the money in a partiluar way

154
Q

Ds operated a company and were convicted of the as they were under an obligation to deal with the money in a partiluar way
What case is this under which topics?

A

Klineberg and Marsden under Property received under obligation, belonging to another, theft ?

155
Q

What happened in the case of Davidge v Bunnett Property received under obligation, belonging to another, theft ?

A

D was given money by flatmates to pay bills, used this to buy christmas presents. Legal obligation, guilty of theft

156
Q

D was given money by flatmates to pay bills, used this to buy christmas presents. Legal obligation, guilty of theft
What case is this under which topics?

A

Davidge V Bunnett. Property received under obligation, belonging to another, theft

157
Q

What were the 3 cases under Property received under obligation, belonging to another, theft ?

A
  • Klineberg and Marsden
  • Hall
  • Davidge v Bunnett
158
Q

What happened in the case of Attorney General’s Reference 1985- under property received by a mistake?

A

Ds salary was overpaid into her bank account. D was under an obligation to make restoration and if there was a dishonest intention to not do this, then there is a completed theft

159
Q

Ds salary was overpaid into her bank account. D was under an obligation to make restoration and if there was a dishonest intention to not do this, then there is a completed theft
What case is this under which topics?

A

Attorney General’s Reference 1985- under property received by a mistake

160
Q

What happened in the case of Gilks under Property received by mistake?

A

D was overpaid in his bet but did not make restoration. Held that betting transactions are non-enforceable under s.5(4) Theft Act 1968

161
Q

What was held in the cases Small and Holden under dishonesty, theft?

A

the fact that a belief may be an unreasonable one does not prevent the defendent from relying on s.2(1)a,b,c. If D had a genuine belief, in one of those situations then D is not guilty.

s. 2(1)(a) D believes he has a right in law to deprive the other of it
s. 2(1)b- D would have the others consent if they had known about the appropriation
s. 2(1)c-if the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered

162
Q

the fact that a belief may be an unreasonable one does not prevent the defendent from relying on s.2(1)a,b,c. If D had a genuine belief, in one of those situations then D is not guilty.
s.2(1)(a) D believes he has a right in law to deprive the other of it
s.2(1)b- D would have the others consent if they had known about the appropriation
s.2(1)c-if the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered
What case is this under which topics?

A

Small and Holden

163
Q

What happened in the Ghosh test under dishonesty, theft?

A

Ghosh was a doctor who claimed fees for an operation he had not carried out to cover costs which were real. COA held that the test for dishonesty has both an objective and a subjective element to it.

  • -Was D dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable man
  • -Did D realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?
164
Q

What happened in the case of Velumyl under Intention to permanently depriving?

A

D took money from a school safe intending to repay the money. COA upheld conviction for theft as he had the intention to permanently deprive the company of the banknotes taken from the safe.

165
Q

D took money from a school safe intending to repay the money. COA upheld conviction for theft as he had the intention to permanently deprive the company of the banknotes taken from the safe.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Velumyl, under intention to permanently deprive, theft

166
Q

What happened in the case os Zerei under intention to permanently deprive, theft?

A

V was attacked and his car taken. D then abandoned the car not too far away. D was only convicted of ABH

167
Q

V was attacked and his car taken. D then abandoned the car not too far away. D was only convicted of ABH
What case is this under which topics?

A

Zerei, under an intention to permanently deprive, theft

168
Q

What happened in the case of DPP v Lavender under intention to permanently deprive?

A

D took doors from a council property and put them in his council house. D intended to treat the doors as though his own.

169
Q

D took doors from a council property and put them in his council house. D intended to treat the doors as though his own.
What case is this under which topics?

A

DPP v Lavender under intention to permanently deprive

170
Q

What happened in the case of Lloyd under borrowing or lending under Intention of permanently depriving?

A

In this case it was held that borrowing property and keeping it under its value was effected was an intention to permanently deprive. In this case though as D returned the copy, not theft

171
Q

In this case it was held that borrowing property and keeping it under its value was effected was an intention to permanently deprive. In this case though as D returned the copy, not theft
What case is this under which topics?

A

Lloyd under borrowing or lending, intention to permanently deprive, theft

172
Q

Which case is an example of problems when applying the ghosh test of dishonesty?

A

DPP v Gohill and another

173
Q

What happened in the case of DPP v Gohill and another?

A

Ds had allowed customers to borrow equipment taking no personal gain. Magistrates did not believe D to be dishonest, then on appeal Held that the behaviour ofDs was dishonest by the ordinary standards.

174
Q

Ds had allowed customers to borrow equipment taking no personal gain. Magistrates did not believe D to be dishonest, then on appeal Held that the behaviour ofDs was dishonest by the ordinary standards.
What case is this under which topic?

A

DPP v Gohill and another

175
Q

What happened in the case of Robinson under a completed theft, robbery and burglary ?

A

D was owned 7 pounds and took this from V after having assaulted him. As D had a genially belief that he had a right in law to the money he was not dishonest under s.2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968

176
Q

D was owned 7 pounds and took this from V after having assaulted him. As D had a genially belief that he had a right in law to the money he was not dishonest under s.2(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968
What case is this under which topic?

A

Robinson under a completed theft, robbery and burglary

177
Q

What happened in the case of Corcoran v Anderton under under a completed theft, robbery and burglary

A

D hit a woman and tugged at her bag, she let go. Ds left without the bag, it was held there was a theft so Ds were guilty of robbery

178
Q

D hit a woman and tugged at her bag, she let go. Ds left without the bag, it was held there was a theft so Ds were guilty of robbery
What case is this under which topic

A

Corcoran V Anderton under a completed theft, robbery and burglary

179
Q

What happened in the case of Dawson and James under force or threat of force, robbery and burglary?

A

D pushed V while D2 took Vs wallet. COA held force was an ordinary word for the jury to decide

180
Q

D pushed V while D2 took Vs wallet. COA held force was an ordinary word for the jury to decide
What case is this under which topics?

A

Dawson and James under force or threat of force, robbery and burglary

181
Q

What happened in the case of Clouden under force, or threat of force, robbery and burglary?

A

COA held that D was guilty of robbery when he had wrenched a shopping basket from Vs hands. COA held it was up to the jury to decide whether this was force

182
Q

COA held that D was guilty of robbery when he had wrenched a shopping basket from Vs hands. COA held it was up to the jury to decide whether this was force
What case is this under which topics?

A

Clouden under force, or threat of force, robbery and burglary

183
Q

What happened in the case of B and R v DPP under force or threat of force, robbery and burglary?

A

V was stopped by a group of boys who pushed him and asked for his phone. Held that D need not feel threatened. s.8 of Robbery states that it can be committed where D ‘seeks’ to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force

184
Q

V was stopped by a group of boys who pushed him and asked for his phone. Held that D need not feel threatened. s.8 of Robbery states that it can be committed where D ‘seeks’ to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force
What case is this under which topics?

A

B and R v DPP under force or threat of force, robbery and burglary

185
Q

What happened in the case of Hales under force immediately before or at the time of the theft?

A

Ds forced their way into Vs house, put their hand over Vs mouth, stole her jewellery, then tied her up. COA held that tying up the householder was an ongoing theft

186
Q

Ds forced their way into Vs house, put their hand over Vs mouth, stole her jewellery, then tied her up. COA held that tying up the householder was an ongoing theft
What case is this under which topics?

A

Hale under force immediately before or at the time of the theft

187
Q

What happened in the case of Lockley under force immediately before or at the time of the theft?

A

D was caught shoplifting cans of bear then used force in order to escape security. Conviction for robbery upheld following decision in Hale

188
Q

D was caught shoplifting cans of bear then used force in order to escape security. Conviction for robbery upheld following decision in Hale
What case is this under which topics?

A

Lockley under force immediately before or at the time of the theft

189
Q

What happened in the case of Collins under burglary, entry?

A

COA held that the jury had to be staffed that D had made an effective and substantial entry

190
Q

COA held that the jury had to be staffed that D had made an effective and substantial entry
What case is this under which topics?

A

Collins,, burgerly, entry,

191
Q

What happened in the case of Brown?

A

D was leaning through a shop window. COA held that substantial did not assist the definition of entry and so his conviction for burglary was upheld as it was effective

192
Q

D was leaning through a shop window. COA held that substantial did not assist the definition of entry and so his conviction for burglary was upheld as it was effective
What case is this under which topic?

A

Brown, burgarly, entry

193
Q

What happened in the case of Ryan, under entry, burglary?

A

Ds head and arm was in the window of a house. This was not effective. COA upheld conviction saying that there was evidence upon which the jury could find that the defendant had entered

194
Q

Ds head and arm was in the window of a house. This was not effective. COA upheld conviction saying that there was evidence upon which the jury could find that the defendant had entered
What case is this under which topic?

A

Ryan, entry, burglary

195
Q

What happened in the case of Walkington under ‘part of building’, burglary?

A

D went into a counter area and opened a till, burglary under s.9(1)a was upheld as he entered as a trespasser with the intention of stealing

196
Q

D went into a counter area and opened a till, burglary under s.9(1)a was upheld as he entered as a trespasser with the intention of stealing
What case is this under which topics?

A

Walkington under ‘part of building’, burglary

197
Q

What happened in the case of Smith and Jones under ‘going beyond permission’, burglary?

A

D went into his fathers house and took his tv sees. V said D could not be a trespasser as he had general permission. COA upheld conviction under s.9(1)b as D entered in excess of the permission

198
Q

D went into his fathers house and took his tv sees. V said D could not be a trespasser as he had general permission. COA upheld conviction under s.9(1)b as D entered in excess of the permission
What case is this under which topics?

A

Smith and Jones under ‘going beyond permission’, burgarly

199
Q

What happened in the case of B and S v Leathley under Building or part of a building, burglary?

A

freezer container used as storage had doors and lacks and electricity supply. Held to be a building

200
Q

freezer container used as storage had doors and lacks and electricity supply. Held to be a building
What case is this under which topics?

A

B and S v Leathley ,under building or part of a building, burgarly

201
Q

What happened in the case of Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould under building or part of a building, burgarly?

A

lorry trailer with wheels was held not to be a building.

202
Q

What are the M’Naghten Rules 1843?

A
  1. D must be labouring from a defect of reason
  2. which must be the result of a disease of the mind
  3. causing the defendant not to know the nature and quality of his act or not to know he was doing wrong
203
Q

What happened in the case of Kemp under disease of the mind, insanity ?

A

D suffered from hardening of the arteries causing D moments of loss of consciousness. D attacked wife with a hammer. Not guilty by reason of insanity because the law was not concerned with the brain, but the mind.

204
Q

D suffered from hardening of the arteries causing D moments of loss of consciousness. D attacked wife with a hammer. Not guilty by reason of insanity because the law was not concerned with the brain, but the mind.
What happened in this case under which topics?

A

Kemp, under disease of the mind, insanity

205
Q

What happened in the case of Sullivan under disease of the mind, insanity?

A

D had an epileptic fit injuring V. It did not matter whether the impairment was permanent or transcient so long as it existed at the time at which the defendant did the act

206
Q

D had an epileptic fit injuring V. It did not matter whether the impairment was permanent or transcient so long as it existed at the time at which the defendant did the act
What case is this under which topics?

A

Sullivan under disease of the mind, insanity

207
Q

What happended in the case of Hennessy, under disease of the mind, insanity?

A

D was a diabetic who had not taken insulin- hyperglycemic. D drove a stolen car and had no recollection. Correct defence was insanity as the disease of diabetes was affecting the mind.

208
Q

D was a diabetic who had not taken insulin- hyperglycemic. D drove a stolen car and had no recollection. Correct defence was insanity as the disease of diabetes was affecting the mind.
what case is this under which topics?

A

Hennessy, under disease of the mind, insanity

209
Q

What happened in the case of Burgess under disease of the mind, insanity?

A

D was suffering from an external cause resulting in sleepwalking. He then attacked his girlfrirnd. Not guilty by reason of insanity

210
Q

D was suffering from an external cause resulting in sleepwalking. He then attacked his girlfrirnd. Not guilty by reason of insanity
What case is this under which topics?

A

Burgess, under disease of the mind, insanity

211
Q

What happened in the case of Quick under extneral factors, disease of the mind, insanity?

A

D was a diabetic who had taken insulin but not eaten enough, hypoglycaemia. Not insanity as it was caused by external factor- automatism

212
Q

D was a diabetic who had taken insulin but not eaten enough, hypoglycaemia. Not insanity as it was caused by external factor- automatism
What case is this under which topics?

A

Quick under external factors, disease of the mind, insanity

213
Q

What happened in the case of Coley under voluntary intoxication, disease of the mind, insanity?

A

D was a cannibas user who then attacked his neighbour. Evidence suggested he had a psychotic episode induced by the cannibas. Voluntary intoxicaion meant that D could have neither insanity or automatism

214
Q

D was a cannibas user who then attacked his neighbour. Evidence suggested he had a psychotic episode induced by the cannibas. Voluntary intoxicaion meant that D could have neither insanity or automatism
What case is this under which topics?

A

Coley under voluntary intoxication, disease of the mind, insanity

215
Q

What happened in the case of Harris under voluntary intoxication, disease of the mind, insanity?

A

D was convicted of arson. D was a heavy drinker but had stopped a few days before. This caused alcohol induced hallucinations and so was not deemed as voluntarily intoxicated

216
Q

D was convicted of arson. D was a heavy drinker but had stopped a few days before. This caused alcohol induced hallucinations and so was not deemed as voluntarily intoxicated
what case is this under which topics?

A

Harris under voluntary intoxication, disease of the mind, insanity

217
Q

Nature and quality of the act in insanity refer to the physical character of the act. What are the two ways in which the defendant may not know the nature and quality of their act?

A

1) because he is in a state of consiocuness or impaired consiousness
2) he is conscious but due to medical condition he does not understand what he is doing

218
Q

What happened in the case of Oye under nature and quality of the act, insanity?

A

D assaulted the police and continued to behave oddly. D had a psychotic episode and did not know what he was doing nor that it was wrong. Not guilty by reason of insanity

219
Q

D assaulted the police and continued to behave oddly. D had a psychotic episode and did not know what he was doing nor that it was wrong. Not guilty by reason of insanity
What case is this under which topics?

A

Oye under nature and faulty of the act, insanity

220
Q

What happened in the case of Johnson under not knowing the nature and quality of the act, insanity?

A

D stabbed his neighbour suffering from a paranoid schxiphrenchic episode. D knew the nature and quality of his acts and knew that they were legally wrong. Insanity not available following the decision in Windle.

221
Q

D stabbed his neighbour suffering from a paranoid schxiphrenchic episode. D knew the nature and quality of his acts and knew that they were legally wrong. Insanity not available following the decision in Windle.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Johnson under not knowing the nature and quality of the act, insanity

222
Q

What was the definition of automatism in Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland 1963?

A

An act done by the muscles without any control of the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep walking

223
Q

An act done by the muscles without any control of the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep walking
What case is this under which topics?

A

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland 1963

224
Q

What happened in the case of Hill v Baxter under non-insane automatism?

A

D drove through a sign without stopping as he claimed he could not remember anything for some distance but there was no evidence to suggest this

225
Q

D drove through a sign without stopping as he claimed he could not remember anything for some distance but there was no evidence to suggest this
What case is this under which topics?

A

Hill v Baxter

226
Q

What happened in the case of T under non-insane automatism?

A

it was accepted that exceptional stress can be an external factor which can cause automatism. In this case though the jury held that D did not get defence after being raped and then taking part in a robbery

227
Q

it was accepted that exceptional stress can be an external factor which can cause automatism. In this case though the jury held that D did not get defence after being raped and then taking part in a robbery
What case si this under which topics?

A

T under Non-Insane automatism

228
Q

What happened in the case of Attorney Generals Reference 1993 under non-insane automatism?

A

the COA held that there must be a total destruction of voluntary control after a lorry driver had drove for a long distance and crashed into a car. Not automatism

229
Q

the COA held that there must be a total destruction of voluntary control after a lorry driver had drove for a long distance and crashed into a car. Not automatism
What case is this under which topics?

A

Attorney Generals Refrence 1993 under non-insane automatism

230
Q

What happened in the case of Bailey under non-insane automatism?

A

D was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking insulin (hypoglecmia) causing him to attack V. Automatism was dismissed though COA did say that there is a difference in the way specific intent and basic intent offences are applied

  1. If D was reckless in getting into a state of automatism then self-induced automatism is not a defence. Subjective recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea of crimes of basic intent
  2. Where the self induced automatic state is caused through drinking or drugs then defence is not available. DPP v Majewski decided that becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct
  3. Where D does not know his actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state that he has not been reckless and can use the defence of automatism
231
Q

What happened in Hardie under basic intent offence, non-insane automatism?

A

D was depressed and took valium to calm himself. COA quashed conviction of setting fire to a wardrobe as he had not been reckless.

232
Q

D was depressed and took valium to calm himself. COA quashed conviction of setting fire to a wardrobe as he had not been reckless.
What case is this under which topics?

A

Hardie under basic intent offence, non-insane automatism

233
Q

What case states that voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence if the defendant is so intoxicated that he has not formed the mens rea for the offence?

A

DPP v Beard

234
Q

What happened in the case of DPP v Beard?

A

D charged with murder and said he was too intoxicated. It was held that if D was so drunk he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime of specific intent

235
Q

D charged with murder and said he was too intoxicated. It was held that if D was so drunk he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime of specific intent
What case is this under which topics?

A

DPP v Beard

236
Q

What happened in the case of Kingston under involuntary intoxication?

A

D was drugged and put into a room with a 15 year old boy. D abused the boy and was held to have had the mens rea, intoxication not a defence

237
Q

D was drugged and put into a room with a 15 year old boy. D abused the boy and was held to have had the mens rea, intoxication not a defence
What case is this under which topic?

A

Kingston, involuntary manslaughter

238
Q

What happened in the case of Lipman under intoxicated mistake?

A

D and V took LSD. D killed V while hallucinating. D convicted of manslaughter as did not have the specific intent for murder

239
Q

D and V took LSD. D killed V while hallucinating. D convicted of manslaughter as did not have the specific intent for murder
What case is this under which topics?

A

Lipman, under intoxicated mistake

240
Q

Which act states that for self defence, defence of another or prevention of crime that D cannot rely on a mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced?

A

s.76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

A*LAW-Cases! (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions