Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Spanish HL > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Spanish flashcards Medical Spanish flashcards AP® Spanish flashcards
1
Q

R v Miller

A

D created dangerous situation which created a duty to act

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

R v Church

A

D will be liable if the entire incident viewed as a whole could be viewed as a series of events designed to cause death or GBH. Elements of the offence will be satisfied provided AR and MR occur somewhere during a single transaction.

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

R v White

A

Factual causation - “but for” test

Whether V would have died if it wasn’t for the act of D? Not in this case. D not liable.

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

R v Pagett

A

Legal causation
D’s act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death provided that it contributed significantly to that result.

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

R v Jordan

A

Legal causation - unless palpably wrong treatment (medical interventions)

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

R v Cheshire

A

D liable even if negligent treatment (inevitable misdiagnosis and routine errors) as D caused V to necessitate medical treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Roberts

A

The chain of causation will be broken only if V’s actions were “so daft” as to be unforeseeable

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

Blaue

A

Think skull rule - take V as you find him, characteristics that make V vulnerable.
JW, blood transfusion

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

R v Pittwood

A

Contract - close gates - forgot - train - death
A person under contact will be liable for harmful consequences of his failure to perform his contractual obligations. Duty extends to those reasonably affected by the omission, not just the other party to the contract.

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

Evans

A

Prior dangerous act

Mother, daughter, sister, drugs

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

Omission

A

No liability, except when duty to act!

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

Cato

A

D’s conduct must be a culpable cause

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

Instan

A

Prior agreement to support

Aunt and niece

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

Kennedy No 2

A

Free deliberate and informed act of third party will break the chain of causation.
Self-injection of drugs by V

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

Santana-Bermudez

A

Child-ignored-cliff-fall (omission)

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

Stone and Dobinson

A

Voluntary assumption of care
Anorexia, not fed, death
Close blood relationship

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

Gibbins&Proctor

A

Child-starved-death

Close blood relationships

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

R v Woolin

A

TEST FOR OBLIQUE INTENTION AND VIRTUAL CERTAINTY
A jury may find that D intended the outcome if it was a virtually certain consequence of his actions and he realised this was the case

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

R v Cunnigham

A

Test for recklessness in offences NOT involving criminal damage
The particular D must foresee that a particular type of harm might be done and yet ha gone on to take the risk of it, rather than an ordinary person (subjective test)

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

R v G

A

Children, tesco, trash, fire
Test for recklessness only in offences involving criminal damage
A person acts recklessly with respect to:
A) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist
B) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
And it is in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk (subj test)

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

Latimer

A

Transferred malice, if AR matches, MR may be transferred

Battery to another

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

R v Griffen

A

Psychological commitment in attempt

Children - mother - kidnap

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

Attempt

A

More than merely preparatory

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

Gullefer

A

Merely preparatory act comes to an end and the proper crimes commences

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

Mohan

A

Irrelevant whether consequence of attempt is different (PC - drive - off - attempt - ABH)

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

R v Jackson

A

CONSPIRACY - specified course of conduct

Contingent plan to commit an offence if it was necessary (or possible) was still a plan to commit an offence.

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

Re AG’s Reference (No 1 of 1975)

A

AL
Procuring implies causation not consensus
Abetting and counselling imply consensus not causation
Aiding requires actual assistance but neither consensus nor causation

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

R v Bainbridge

A

D must know the type of crime (not the setting) so knowing that the cutting equipment was going to be use for burglary would suffice to establish MR for secondary liability

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

Maxwell v DPP for Northern Ireland

A

Foresight of a range of possible offences would be enough, precise nature of the offence is not needed
Driver - terrorists - pub

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

R v Rook

A

Withdrawal of participation
There is no requirement that a persona actually be present at the commission of the crime in order to attract accessorise liability

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

R v Becerra

A

Communication of withdrawal must be timely and “serve unequivocal notice upon the other party that if he proceeds upon it he does to without further aid and assistance of those who withdraw”

32
Q

Mitchell

A

The necessity of communication of withdrawal was waived in relation to spontaneous violence

33
Q

R v Robinson

A

Situation characterised as a build up of tension culminating in violence rather than a truly spontaneous attack, d who initiated an attack would only be able to withdraw in exception circumstances and must give unequivocal communication to others that he was withdrawing.

34
Q

R v Byrne

A

Diminished responsibility could cover situations in which D suffered from uncontrollable urged

35
Q

R v Lamb

A

UDA manslaughter required a criminally unlawful act. In twh absence of AR and MR for common assault being established, there was no unlawful act upon which liability for UDA mans. could be constructed.

36
Q

R v Lowe

A

UDA manslaughter required a positive act. An omission even a deliberate one will not suffice.

37
Q

R v Church

A

Not enough to that an unlawful act caused death, the unlawful act most be one that “sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to the ricks or some (albeit not serious) harm.

38
Q

R v Newbury and Jones

A

Provided that D intentionally does an act which is both unlawful and dangerous, he need not to recognise its dangerousness; there is no requirement that D foresees a risk of harm to other arising from his unlawful act.

39
Q

R v Adomako

A

Gross negligence manslaughter
D’s conduct must have departed from the prow or standard of care incumbent upon him.
When a person holds themselves out as posses isn’t some special knowledge or skill then their conduct will be judged against the reasonably competent in the field.

40
Q

R v Ireland

A

Common assault
Silent calls amount to a form of positive communication
Psychological harm

41
Q

R v Constanza

A

The letter caused an apprehension of violence at some time not excluding immediate future.

42
Q

R v Brown

A

Consent was no defence to charges arising from injuries inflicted during sadomasochistis homosexual encounters. It is not in the public interest that the people cause each other injury for no good reason.

43
Q

R v Wilson

A

What happens between husband and wife in the privacy of the their home should not concern the criminal law.
(Consent case)
Branding of H’s initials on W’s buttocks

44
Q

Donovan

A

ABH is harm that is more than merely transient or trifling

S47 OAPA

45
Q

R v Lewis

A

V locked herself in the bedroom. D started to break down the door so V jumped out of the window to escape. His common assault (breaking down the door caused her to apprehend immediate unlawful violence) so it was held to be the cause of the injuries sustained in the fall.

46
Q

R v Robert

A

V jumped out of the moving vehicle because D interfered with V’s clothing (battery). Held that D’s battery caused the injuries sustained by V in the fall.

47
Q

R v Ireland + R v Burstow

A

Harm to a person’s mind that amounts to a recognised medical condition falls within bodily harm

48
Q

R v Savage

A

MR of s47 required intention or subj recklessness in relation to common assault or battery only. There was no requirement of intention or foresight in respect of the injury caused by the assault or battery (assault occasioning ABH is called an offence of half MR)

49
Q

Wounding or inflicting GBH s20

A

HIV cases:
Dica and Konzani - defence of consent will only be available if V gave informed consent, ie in the knowledge of D’s HIV status.

50
Q

DPP v Parmenter

A

S20 OAPA
Standard of recklessness is subjective upon what D actually foresaw not what he ought to have foreseen.
Foresight of the consequences was required but not foresight of their magnitude. Mowatt - foresight of some harm will suffice. It is easier then go establish recklessness in relation to s 20 than it would be if a pure form of Cunningham recklessness was applied.

51
Q

Oxford v Moss

A

Confidential information does not amount to property (theft)

52
Q

Turner No 2

A

D was held guilty of theft for removing his own car from a garage where it had undergone repair. This was because the garage was in possession of the car so it belonged to them for the purposes of theft.

53
Q

Lawrence v MPC

A

Tourist, cab, wallet
Appropriation
Whether the rights of the owner had been assumed and the issue of consent was irrelevant.

54
Q

R v Morris

A

Label switching

Assumption of any one of the rights of the owner amounts to appropriation

55
Q

DPP v Gomez

A

S3 (1)
Possible appropriation despite owner’s consent
(Cheque case)

56
Q

Hinks

A

Low intelligence - account - transfer
Receipt of a gift that among fed to a valid transfer of ownership at civil law could still amount to theft if it was dishonestly induced by D

57
Q

AG’s reference No 1 of 1983

A

Property received by mistake - D must make restoration when aware of mistake (else deliberate failure)
Case - bug-overpayment - aware - no return - theft

58
Q

Ghosh

A

Surgeon - fee - free operation
Test:
Obj - dishonest according to ordinary standard of reasonable and honest people
Subj - did D realise reasonable and honest people regard it as dishonest?

59
Q

R v Lloyd

A

Films - cinema - copied
Borrowing would amount to outright taking only where the property was returned in such a changed state that all its goodness and virtue were gone. The partial diminution of value represented by the copying of the films would not suffice despite the reduction in revenue caused by the availability of pirate films.

60
Q

Allen

A

Fraud
Intention to avoid payment temporarily will not suffice. Has to be PERMANENTLY.
So D who left the hotel owing a large bill which he genuinely hoped to be able to pay at a later date was not liable.

61
Q

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

A

A person who firms an intention to kill whilst sober and drinks to give himself Dutch courage to do the act, and who then goes on to kill whilst intoxicated, cannot rely on intoxication to avoid liability.

62
Q

DPP v Majewski

A

Te effect of intoxication on D’s state of mind was only relevant to crimes of specific intent. In crimes of basic intent, D’s recklessness in taking drugs/alcohol that rendered his behaviours uncontrolled and unpredictable was in itself sufficient to substitute for MR of the offence

63
Q

R v Hardie

A

Valium - belief to calm D down - arson

Consumption of non-dangerous drugs would amount to involuntary intoxication, unless the consumption itself was reckless.

64
Q

R v Kingston

A

D was drugged by another man who also drugged V.
Although D’s will was weakened by drugs administered without his knowledge, he was still aware of his situation and knew his actions were wrong. As such, he had MR for the offence charged.

65
Q

R v Williams (Gladstone)

A

Self-defence
D tried to stop man attacking another. V was a man detained for robbery. D trying to rely on self-defence.
The reasonableness of D’e actions must be judged on the facts as he believed them to be. If D’s perception of event had been correct, SD would have been available and he should not Ben deprived of a defence because he was mistaken. Provide the mistake belief was honestly held, it is immaterial that the mistake was not reasonable

66
Q

Bird

A

Duty to retreat

67
Q

Beckford v R

A

Pre-emptive force
A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike.

68
Q

R v Hudson and Taylor

A

Duress + Immediacy
False statements, trial
The issue was not whether the threats could be carried out immediately but whether they were operating on the defendants at the time of the threat. CA recognised that threats were no less powerful because they were not immediately effective.

69
Q

R v Cole

A

There must be a link between the threat made and the offence committee.
Threat - repayments - 2 armed robberies

70
Q

Graham (confirmed in R v Howe)

A

Test for duress

  1. D was overwhelmed by threats of death or serious bodily harm
  2. A sober person of reasonable firmness would have been compelled to offend.
71
Q

Bowen

A

Relevant characteristics to the reasonable man test:

Age, sex, pregnancy, serious physical disability, recognised mental illness/psychiatric conditions

72
Q

R v Sharp

A

Availability of duress by threats
A person who voluntarily joins a gang, knowing of its nature, as an active member cannot avail himself of duress if pressure is put upon him to offend.

73
Q

Hasan

A

Membership of an organised gang is not essential. It is enough that D put himself in the position where he will encounter criminals with a tendency to violence eg by buying drugs from a dealer.

74
Q

R v Willer

A

Duress of circumstances
D should have a defence as he was wholly driven by the force of circumstances into doing what he did and did not drive the car otherwise that form of compulsion, ie under duress.

75
Q

Martin

A

D’s wife threatened to commit suicide unless he drove their son to school. This provided a defence of duress if circumstances to the charge of driving whilst disqualified.

76
Q

Fagan

A

Coincidence of AR and MR

Spanish HL (27 decks)

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