Cases Flashcards
Fuller’s Speluncean Explores / R V Dudley & Stephens
Five men trapped in cave, major rescue operation, radio contact with doctors, judges and lawyers, told they would die. W suggested through dice, he changed his mind, other threw dice for him and he was killed and eaten.
Analysis: public opinion was to aquit them. Laws are there to promote social cohesion and for society so why go against public opinion. Laws should not be this rigid.
Handy J- takes into account practical wisdom and public opinion, looking at what the law should be. Legal Realism.
R V Wilson
1994 wife went to doctor with scars on buttocks, W&A, husband’s initials. Found that she consented. Alan was not convicted.
Analysis: shows how the law is biased against women. Didn’t question consent. Distinguished from sado-masicism, more like tattooing.
R V Brown
Homosexuals committing violent acts for sexual pleasure. In private, for 10 years, involved consent, instruments used and sterilised, code words used.
Court said it could not cancel out injury.
Analysis: link to JS Mill Harm Principle, question of consent.
Airdale NHS Trust v Anthony Bland 1993
Bland crushed during match and put into PVS for 3 years with no hope of recovery. Court withdrew treatment
Analysis: court allowed him to die with dignity, it was within his best interests as he has no quality of life. Difference from euthanasia? Omission versus act? No division of opinion within case. Was hydration and artificial feeding treatment?
Re A
Mary and Jodie. Conjoined twins. If they were separated then Mary would definitely die, however if not they would both die. Parents devout Roman Catholics so did not believe in intervening. Court went above parents wishes and they were separated.
Analysis: shows that the law is more important than parents wishes. Morality.
R V Emmett
Heterosexual unmarried couple, violence for sexual pleasure. Consented to him tying her up, tying bag around head, pouring lighter fluid on breasts and setting alight. Convicted despite consent. Unpredictability of what happened.
Analysis: court intervening when significant harm comes to an individual. JS Mill Harm Principle.
Eweida and others V UK
Christians believed they had been victims of discrimination.
Eweida: only one who was successful. Not allowed to wear cross around neck.
Lidel: lost job as a result of her discrimination of civil partnerships.
McFarlan: unwilling to discuss sexual issues with homosexual couples.
Re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time limit) [2014]
Waited over 6 months for a parental order as were unaware that they needed one. 3 years.
Analysis: court looked to the statute and could not see how law would want to take away a child, emotional distress, purposive rule. Shows how laws take into account morality. Flexibility.
In the matter of Z (A Child)
Single father applying for parental order.
Analysis: used the mischief approach, looking to the intent.
R V Collins
Regina let Collins into her room, believing him to be her boyfriend. He was naked, with an erect penis and she was drunk. They had full sexual intercourse, before she realised he wasn’t her boyfriend and she slapped him.
Analysis: in favour of a man, short sentence.
Ratio decidendi= to be trespassing, one has to intend to be. Needs to be intentional.
Factory Acts 1833-1864
Children under 9 could not be employed, working hours for children limited.
Analysis: the bourgeoisie were doing this to help themselves, could simply bring in more children to exploit, and the workers were given less breaks. Marx believes the bourgeoisie did this to prevent workers from revolting.
However the Marxist argument is more concerned with the economy than the law, is more appealing to the proletariat not judges, lawyers etc. Never clear about what would replace the law, only that in a communist society there would be no need for it.
