Crim Cases for PQ Flashcards
(122 cards)
1
Q
But For Test
A
R v White
2
Q
More than de minimis
A
R v Hughes
3
Q
Natural event unforeseeable break chain
A
Harlot’s Case
4
Q
Free, deliberate, informed break chain
A
Kennedy No.2
5
Q
Extraordinary and abnormal break chain (old)
A
Empress Car
6
Q
Innocent 3P no break
A
R v Saunders & Archer
7
Q
If act for self-preservation/legal duty, no break
A
R v Pagett
8
Q
Must be so potent and independent (+ sig contribution) to break
A
R v Cheshire
9
Q
So daft that reasonable unforeseeable to break
A
R v Roberts
10
Q
Thin skull rule
A
R v Blaue
11
Q
If got contract got omissions liability
A
R v Pittwood
12
Q
Police got duty to help
A
R v Dytham
13
Q
If create dangerous situation got duty to rectify
A
R v Miller
14
Q
If create dangerous situation got duty to rectify
A
R v Evans
15
Q
Parents got duty to child
A
R v Gibbins & Proctor
16
Q
Blood relative got duty (Stone), if take in as lodger got duty (Dobinson)
A
R v Stone & Dobinson
17
Q
Friends like brothers got duty
A
R v Sinclair
18
Q
If act is continuing then AR can coincide w MR
A
Fagan v Metropolitan Police
19
Q
1) Virtual Certainty 2) Foresight 3) Jury entitled
A
R v Woollin
20
Q
Foresee risk + know unreasonable to take risk
A
R v G
21
Q
MR can be transferred if AR on V + offence same
A
R v Latimer
22
Q
D aware of necessary degree risk (see R v G)
A
R v Lidar
23
Q
1) Duty breached 2) Obvious and serious risk 3) Causation 4) Grossness
A
Adomako
24
Q
Unlawful act + all sober and reasonable people foresee risk of some harm
A
R v Church
25
Knowledge of risk can be gained mid act
R v Watson
26
Cannot premeditation, need loss of reasoning
R v Jewell
27
Breakups usually not qualifying trigger, but take into account circumstances
R v Dawes
28
Sexual infidelity not qualifying trigger, but can evidence w others
R v Clinton
29
Conditional battery =/= assault
Tuberville v Savage
30
Everyday contact
Collins v Wilcock
31
Indirect contact can
DPP v K
32
More than merely transient and trifling
R v Donovan
33
Psychiatric harm included
R v Dhaliwal
34
Every layer of skin broken
JCC v Eisenhower
35
Really serious harm
DPP v Smith
36
Serious psychiatric harm qualify
R v Burstow
37
Include transmission of disease
R v Dica
38
Same race can, but cannot be directed at conduct
R v Pal
39
Same race can, but cannot be directed at conduct
Cain v CPS
40
Honest belief in serious violence
R v Williams (Gladstone)
41
Can pre-empt if honest belief
R v Bird
42
Objective and reasonable test + take into account heat of moment
R v Palmer
43
Provocation no open for SD
R v Keane
44
Voluntary intoxication no open for SD, unless honest belief not bc intoxication
R v O'grady
45
Sadomasochistic no
R v Brown
46
Branding w hot knife can (Tattooing)
R v Wilson
47
Body modification no
R v BM
48
Sports yes
R v Barnes
49
Horseplay yes
R v Jones
50
Psychiatric conditions not taken into account
| Reasonable Belief for Sexual Offences
R v B(MA)
51
Mere submission is not consent
R v Doyle
52
Reluctant consent is still consent
R v Watson
53
Coercion/Economic duress = no consent
R v Kirk
54
Grooming no vitiate but possible
R v Ali(Yassir)
55
Drunken consent is still consent, unless completely incapable of choosing
R v Bree
56
Earlier advance before becoming unconscious insufficient for consent
R v Ciccarelli
57
Non-disclosure =/= deception
R v B
58
Lying that police was telling them to sex (no s76 but s74)
R v Jheeta
59
Deceived to masturbate online (humiliation revenge) - s76 purpose
R v Denovald
60
Deception as to pulling out vitiate
R (F) v DPP
61
Deception as to condom vitiate
R v Assange
62
Deception as to gender not s76 but s74
R v McNally
63
Undercover cop lie environmental beliefs - no vitiate
R v Monica
64
Vasectomy not nature of act (must be directly related to sex)
R v Lawrance
65
Switching labels = appropriation
R v Morris
66
Trying to sell (even if unsuccessful) = appropriation
R v Pitham & Hehl
67
Taking more money than necessary = appropriation (even if consent)
R v Lawrence
68
Consent can still appropriate
R v Gomez
69
Gift can still appropriate
R v Hinks
70
Mere possession enough to give interest
Turner (no.2)
71
Replacement with different insufficient
R v Velumyl
72
Abandoning = no intention of permanent deprivation
R v Mitchell
73
Objective test: standards of ordinary reasonable people with D knowledge
Ivey v Genting
74
Dishonestly make false rep w intention to make a gain
R v Jeevarajah
75
Force must hv direct physical contact
P v DPP
76
Slight force sufficient
R v Dawson
77
Theft/appropriation continuing act, so force can be afterwards
R v Hale
78
Must enter knowing/reckless trespass
R v Collins
79
Half body in = trespass
R v Brown
80
Permission to enter can be exceeded when steal (knowingly exceed)
R v Jones & Smith
81
If primary no knowledge/capacity, secondary becomes primary
R v Michael
82
Material support (supply tools)
R v Bainbridge
83
Need not be substantial; Jogee: no need causal link
R v Hussain
84
Spiking = procurement = assist
AG Ref No.1
85
Urging someone to commit a crime
| Complicity
R v Calhaem
86
Provide info/advice
R v Baker
87
Encouragement can come in the form of pariticipation in shoot off
R v Gnango
88
Mere presence no encourage (need positive encouragement)
R v Clarkson
89
Mere presence can contribute to force in numbers in hostile situation
R v Jogee
90
Reckless insufficient, must intend
| Complicity
R v Scott
91
Know essential matters
Johnson v Youden
92
Essential matters: range of offences
R v Maxwell
93
Essential matters: type of offence
R v Bainbridge
94
Need unequivocal communication of withdrawal
R v Rook
95
Not turning up insufficient withdrawal
R v Goodspeed
96
Can withdraw sponteneously from joint enterprise
R v O'Flaherty
97
Shared design, not similar but separate
R v Mehta
98
Don't need play active part in crime (eg: organiser)
R v Siracusa
99
Don't need intend for full crime; part is enough
R v Anderson
100
Need to intend for crime to be carried out, motive irrelevant
R v Yip Chiu-Cheung
101
Need to embark on crime proper
| Horse race scam no claim money
R v Gullefer
102
Need to embark on crime proper
| Kidnap no kidnap yet
R v Geddes
103
Intention for full offence/ suspicion not enough
R v Pace & Rogers
104
Impossibility of committing offence not defence
R v Shivpuri
105
1) Defect of reason 2) Disease of mind 3) Dunno nature/quality
McNaughton Rules
106
Epilepsy
R v Sullivan
107
Diabetes
R v Henessy
108
Sleepwalking
R v Burgess
109
Effects of tumour
R v Kemp
110
Need to know unlawfully AND morally wrong
| Insanity
R v Keal
111
Internal cause = insane, external = non insane
R v Quick
112
Need to foresee risk of becoming aggressive
R v Bailey
113
Cannot for basic intent crimes
DPP v Majewski
114
Can for specific intent (MR gone)
R v Lipman
115
1) Avoid irreparable evil 2) No more than necessary 3) Evil inflicted not disproportionate to evil avoided
Re A (conjoined twins)
116
Perceived threat of death/GBH
R v Conway
117
D own reasonable belief - perceived threat?
R v Martin
118
D act reasonably and proportionately to threat
R v Martin
119
Sober person of reasonable firmness act like D?
R v Graham
120
Opportunity to evade threat?
R v Bradford
121
If threat from criminal enterprise/gang association, no duress
R v Z(Hasan)
122
Murder no duress
R v Gotts
