Extra Cases

Question 1

Which 2 cases are examples of protection of the environment?

Answer 1

Alphacell v Woodward

Kirkland v Robinson

Question 2

What 2 cases are examples of food safety?

Answer 2

Callow v Tillstone

Smedleys v Breed

Question 3

What 2 cases are examples of road traffic offences?

Answer 3

R v Williams

R v Blakely and Sutton

Question 4

What 3 cases are examples of social concern?

Answer 4

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah
Warner v MPC
Barnfather v Islington Council

Question 5

What 4 cases are examples of public safety?

Answer 5

Atkinson v McAlpine
R v Blake
R v Howells
R v Deyemi

Question 6

What happened in the case of Alphacell v Woodward 1972? under protection of environment

Answer 6

D was convicted of causing polluted matter to enter a river under the River Act 1951 as an underground pipe became disconnected due to blockage.
Regardless of D not being careless or negligent

Question 7

What happened in the case of Kirkland v Robinson? under protection of environment

Answer 7

Divisional Court refused to accept the defendants claim that he was unaware that he was in possession of wild birds contrary to Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Protection of environment said to be one of ‘outstanding social importance’

Question 8

What happened in the case of Callow v Tillstone under food safety?

Answer 8

a butcher convicted of selling meat unfit for public consumption despite the fact he had a vet certify the meat to be safe.
No defence of due diligence

Question 9

What happened in the case of Smedleys v Breed 1974 under food safety?

Answer 9

D, a manufacturer, convicted under Food and Drugs Act 1955 when one tin of peas was found to contain a small caterpillar. HOL dismissed appeal.

Question 10

What is the positive about the case of Smedleys v Breed 1974 when D, a manufacturer, convicted under Food and Drugs Act 1955 when one tin of peas was found to contain a small caterpillar. HOL dismissed appeal. ?

Answer 10

Decisions like these serve to ensure a high level of public health protection, maintaining standards in key areas of business activity.

Question 11

What happened in the case of R v Howells 1977 under public safety?

Answer 11

D was convicted for failing to obtain a firearm certificate even though he believed his gun was an antique and did not require a certificate. Later discovered to be a replica

Question 12

Why was the decision in R v Howells 1977 so strict?
D was convicted for failing to obtain a firearm certificate even though he believed his gun was an antique and did not require a certificate. Later discovered to be a replica

Answer 12

as it is believed that the possession of weapons capable of causing harm should be strictly controlled

Question 13

What happened in the case R v Williams 2011? under road traffic offence

Answer 13

D was driving on a dual carriage way and a man stepped into the road. D was unable to stop and man was killed. D was not speeding and had not been reckless. 2 witnesses gave evidence that it would be impossible to avoid hitting the man. At time of incident D had no driving licence or insurance. D was convicted of causing death by driving without a licence under Road Traffic Act 1988. Appeal dismissed. His driving need not be a substantial cause

Question 14

R v Blakely & Sutton 1991 under road traffic offence

Answer 14

Ds added alcohol to a mans drink and forgot to tell him before he left to drive home. They did not. When breathalysed man was over the limit. Ds evidence ensured man was given an absolute discharge to the charge of drink driving. Ds were convicted of procuring that offence. COA quashed convicted as objective recklessness was not enough for liability

Question 15

Why were Ds convicted quashed by COA in R v Blakely & Sutton 1991?

Answer 15

as objective recklessness was not enough for liability

Question 16

What happened in the case of Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999

Answer 16

Ds were owners of a shop and were convicted of selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16 under the National Lottery Act 1993 even when it was their staff who sold the ticket after being told to be thorough.

Question 17

Why were D’s found guilty in Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999?

Answer 17

as the Divisional Court found the offence to be one of strict liability and therefore did not require mens rea

Question 18

What happened in the case o Warner v MPC 1969?under social concern r

Answer 18

D was charged with being in possession of a prohibited drug contrary to the Drugs Act 1964 when was given 2 boxes which he believed to be containing perfume, one however contained drugs. Convicted as he was in possession

Question 19

What happened in the case of Barnfather v Islington Council?

Answer 19

D was fined under the Education Act for failing to bring her child to school regularly. Appeal dismissed

Question 20

What happened in the case of R v Blake 1996 under public safety/

Answer 20

D was convicted for using wireless telegraphy equipment without a licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 even though he had no knowledge he was transmitting.

Question 21

What happened in the case of R v Deyemi 2008 under public safety?

Answer 21

D was in possession of a firearm contrary to the Firearms Act 1968 which provided for a strict liability offence. Where Parliament intends a strict liability offence, no mens rea is required

Question 22

What happened in the case of Atkinson v McAlpine under public safety?

Answer 22

D was convicted of not informing his workers that were exposed to blue asbestos in their working environment. Convicted.

Question 23

What happened in the case of R v K 2001 under sexual offences?

Answer 23

D was charged under s.14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 for having sex with a 16 year old girl whom he was told was 14. COA ruled that an absence of genuine belief did not have to be proven. Acquitted.
No requirement that D had to have reasonable grounds for his belief

Question 24

What happened in the case of R v Kumer 2004 under sexual offences?

Answer 24

D appealed a conviction for buggery for V who was under 16 on the defense that he thought the boy was of legal age. Buggery was not an absolute offence. the 1956 Act did not suggest the act to be one of strict liability, mens rea was required. Aquitted.

Question 25

What happened in the case of R v Princes 1875 under sexual offences?

Answer 25

D was charged with taking an unmarried girl from the possession of her father contrary to s.55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. D knew girl was in custody of her father but believed he had reasonable grounds to believe she was over 18. Conviction upheld