AC1.1 - case and act examples

Question 1

Government process

Question 2

Criminal justice act 2003

Answer 2

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Question 3

What does it aim to do?

Answer 3

The Act aims to provide a sentencing framework which is clearer and more flexible than the current one. The purposes of sentencing of adults are identified in statute for the first time, as punishment, crime reduction, reform and rehabilitation, public protection and reparation.

Question 4

Dangerous dogs act 1991

Answer 4

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom prohibiting or restricting certain types of dogs and codifying the criminal offence of allowing a dog of any breed to be dangerously out of control.

Question 5

What does it do?

Answer 5

The DDA prohibits certain types of dogs and allowing a dog of any type to be dangerously out of control in a public place or a private place where it is not allowed to be. The law also provides for such dogs to be seized.

Question 6

Problems - what is considered a dangerous dog?

Answer 6

Any dog that aggressively attacks in a manner that causes a person to reasonably believe that the dog posed an imminent threat of serious injury to such person or another person although no such injury occurs. While off the owner’s property, kills a pet animal.

Question 7

Judicial process

Question 8

Stare decisis - Donoghue and Stevenson
(1932)

Answer 8

Case summary :
The ginger beer contained a decomposed snail. Mrs Donoghue suffered from personal injury due to this and proceeded to claim against the manufacturer which was successful and resulted in the establishment of the modern law of negligence and the neighbour test.

Question 9

What was important about the case?

Answer 9

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.

Question 10

What was the decision of the case?

Answer 10

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

Question 11

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)

Answer 11

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills, is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 1935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care

Question 12

Daniels & White (1938)

Answer 12

In Daniels v White (1938) a man bought some lemonade but whilst drinking it felt a burning sensation in his mouth as it contained a corrosive metal. The previous case was referred to when Mr Daniels sued the manufacturer as the cases were similar in fact for the purpose of precedent.

Question 13

Ratio decidendi

Answer 13

This is the first element needed for precedent and it means ‘the reasons for deciding’. It is the judges written judgement setting out the reasons and legal principles used to reach a decision. The ratio decidendi forms a binding precedent which is what must be followed if the cases are similar in fact.

Question 14

R v Brown 1993

Answer 14

The defendants were found guilty of s.20 and s.47 of the Offences Against a Person Act 1861. The court said that defence of consent is not available to defendants charged with such offences under the circumstances - this was the ratio decidendi that formed the binding precedent.

Question 15

Ratio - R v Howe case 1987

Answer 15

In the first case, the two appellants, Howe and Bannister, and the victim were driven by M to an isolated area, where they assaulted the victim and M killed him. Similarly, the three jointly strangled another victim and a third victim managed to escape. They were charged with murder on two counts and with a conspiracy of murder on one count. Howe and Bannister claimed that they committed the crimes because they feared for their own lives if they did not do as M directed. They were convicted on the three counts.

Question 16

Decision and outcome

Answer 16

(1) Duress is not a defence to a charge of murder, whether the accused acted to protect his own life or the life of his family. Accordingly, the defence is not available to the person who killed the victim or those who participated in the murder as principals in the second degree.

(2) If the person under duress is convicted of manslaughter, the person exercising duress can be convicted of murder regardless of this fact.

Question 17

When can a judge avoid precedent? (Distinguish)

Question 18

R v Jordan (1956)

Answer 18

R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 was an English criminal law case that has been distinguished by two later key cases of equal precedent rank for its ruling that some situations of medical negligence following a wounding are those of breaking the chain of causation (across much of Europe termed a novus actus interveniens), capable of absolving a person who has inflicted bodily harm of guilt for an offence of the severity resulting from a consequent decline in bodily condition, in particular, homicide.

Question 19

R v Cheshire 1991

Answer 19

R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 is an English criminal law case establishing the role of the jury in finding liability for death, where subsequent medical negligence occurs following the original injury.

Question 20

Statutory interpretation

Question 21

Rules of statutory interpretation (rule 3 - mischief rule) - Heydon’s Case (1584).

Answer 21

The mischief rule is more flexible than the golden or literal rule, in that the mischief rule requires judges to look over four tasks to ensure that gaps within the law are covered.

Question 22

Explain how the judge used the rule of statutory interpretation.

Answer 22

Literal Rule – London & Berriman

Golden Rule – Adler v George (1964)

Mischief Rule – Smith v Hughes (1956)

Question 23

Literal rule - London and Berriman

Answer 23

The literal rule gives the words in question their plain, ordinary dictionary meaning. An example can be seen in the case of London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946). This case involved a widow claiming compensation for her husband, who had died at work. He was killed while oiling points on a railway line.

Question 24

Golden Rule – Adler v George (1964)

Answer 24

Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces ‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited palace. The defendant was actually in the prohibited place, rather than ‘in the vicinity’ of it, at the time of obstruction.

Held:
The court applied the golden rule. It would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it. His conviction was therefore upheld.