Cases Flashcards
Briderly describe ‘British Railways Board V Pickin (1974)’
A private act of parliament (British railways act 1968) was enacted by parliament. Pickin challenges the act on the basis the BRB had fraudly concealed matters from P which led to them passing the act and depriving Pickin of his land.
What was held in the BRB v P (1974)
That even tho it was made on fraudulent grounds and deprived Pickin of his rights, court cannot go behind parliament once an act has passed
Give the name of two cases that illustrate delegated legislation is ultra vires as a procedure hasn’t been followed
Aylesbury mushroom case (1972)
R v sec of state for education and employment ex parte national union of teachers (2000)
What happened in the Aylesbury mushroom case (1972)
The minister of labour had to consult any organisation appearing to him to represent a number of substantial employers engaging in concerned activity. His failure to consult mushroom growers association which represents 85% mushroom growers, meant his order establishing a training board was invalid as it was against mushroom growers but was valid in relation to others affected as he’d cosntilted them (ie national farmers union in regard to farms)
What happened in R v sec of education (2000)
High court judge ruled that a statutory instrument setting conditions for appraisal and access to higher pay rate for teachers was beyond powers given in Education Act 1996, and the procedure was unfair was only 4 days for consultation
Give two cases relating to literal rule
Whiteley V Chappell (1968)
London & North eastern railway co V Berriman (1946)
Describe what happened in Whitely V Chappell (1868)
Defendant charged with offence to impersonate someone to vote. Found not guilty as the person he was trying to impersonate had died therefore was not entitled to vote anyway.
What happened in London and North Eastern Railway co V Berriman (1946)
Railway worker was killed while doing maintenance work (oiling railway line). Widow tried to claim compensation as no look out man which should have been provided under Fatal Accidents Act, but got no compensation as he wasn’t relaying or repairing the lines as the act said.
What are some cases using the golden rule
Adler V George (1964) Re Sigsworth (1935)
What happened in Adler V George (1964)
Adler V George (1965): offence to obstruct HMF in vicinity of prohibited place, argued not guilty as literally wording of act didn’t apply to those in place. Divisional courts found guilty as would be absurd if those inside place was not guilty but those outside were.
What happened in Re Sigsworth (1935)
Re Sigsworth (1935): son killed mother and wanted to claim estate as usually would’ve gone to next of kin in Administration of Justice Act 1925. Golden rule use to avoid repugnant result (son getting mother’s estate)
What cases use the mischief rule
Smith v Hughes (1960)
Eastbourne borough council v Stirling (2000)
Royal college of nursing V DHSS (1981)
What happened in Smith v Hughes (1960)
Smith V Hughes (1960): no women had been in the streets, one on balconies and rest in half open windows to attract men by calling them or tapping on window. Technically not guilty as not in street but found guilty as the act was to clean up the streets and they were still soliciting by calling to people walking along streets
What happened in Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling (2000)
Eastbourne borough council v Stirling (2000): taxi driver charged for plying for hire in street without a license. Vehicle was parked in taxi rank on station forecourt and not a street. Found guilty as although taxi was on private land, he was likely to get customers from the street. On all fours with Smith V Hughes (1960)
What happened in royal college of nursing V DHSS (1981)
Even though second part of an abortion procedure was not carried out by a doctor, it was lawful as it prevented mischief of abortions (Abortion Act 1967, pregnancy should be terminated by a registered medical practitioner was in issue)
What’s a case in the purposive approach
R (quintavelle) v sec of state for health
What happened in R(Quintavelle) v sec of state for health (2003)
R (quintavelle) v sec of state for health(2003)
Act stated embryo meant a lie human embryo where human fertilisation has been complete. Embryo created by cell nuclear replacement so no fertilisation. Purposive approach: P could not have intended to distinguish between embryos so Act applied
What is the case relevant to intrinsic aids
Harrow LBC v Shah and shah (1999)
What happened in Harrow LBC v Shah and shah (1999)
Defendants charged under s 13 (1)(c) of the National Lottery Act 1993. The subsection doesn’t include words indicating mens rea (intention) is required or not, or does it contain a provision for a defence of ‘due diligence’. The inclusion of due diligence defence in sub section (1)(a) of s 13 but not in the section where defendants were charged was an important point in Divisional court deciding s 13(1) (c) was an offence of strict liability
What case changed the opinion on Hansard
Pepper v Hart (1993)
What happened in Mendoza v Ghaidan (2002)
Rent act applied where person who had tenancy died. Allows unmarried partners to succeed tenancy as it states that person who was living with original tenant as his or her husband or wife shall be treated as the spouse of original intent. HoL decision (before HRA came into affect) said same sex partners didn’t have the right to take over tenancy. CoA held rent act had to be interpreted to conform to the EU convention on HR which forbids gender discriminations. The CoA read the words ‘as his or her wife or husband’ as ‘as if they were his or her wife or husband’, allowing homosexual couples to have same rights
Describe what happened in Fisher v Bell
Court used literal rule coming to the decision in this case. Pointed out there is a level meaning of words ‘offer for sale’ in contract law. This meaning doesn’t include where foods are displayed in a shop window. In contract law this is only an invitation to treat. So under literal rule the shop keeper was not guilty of offering knives for sale
What two cases are relevant in the human rights act (1998)s effect on statutory interpretation
Fisher v bell
Mendoza v ghaidan (2002)
What’s the example given in doctrine of precedent
Automatic telephone and electric co ltd v registrar of restrictive trading agreements (1965)
Court of appeal had made a decision in Schweppes ltd registrar of restrictive trading agreements (1965) on discovery of documents. One judge (Wilmer LJ) disagreed with other two. Same point arose in aforementioned case on same day and now the judges did not disagree as Wilmer bound by precedent
What cases are used to discuss distinguishing
Balfour v Balfour
Merritt v Merritt
What happened in Balfour V Balfour (1919) and Merritt V Merritt (1971)
Both cases involve wife claiming against her husband for break of contract. Balfour decided the claim couldn’t succeed as no intent to create legal intentions, merely a domestic arrangement between husband and wife as no contact. Merritt was successful as they could distinguish between case as although parties married, agreement made after separation and in writing
What is the Re Tacographs: the commission v UK (1979) about
Regulation issued requiring recording equipment in lorries had to be installed. Uk ignored and left it up to lorry owners to decide if they wanted to or not. Matter referred to CoJ who said that it wasn’t up to member states to have discretion with regulations. Wording of article 288 explicit and meant regulations were automatically law
What is the case demonstrating regulations & CoJ hearing about unfulfilled obligations
Re tacographs: the commission v uk 1979
What happened in Marshall v Southampton and south west Hampshire area health authority (1986)
Miss Marshall asked to retire at 62 but men at same position not till 65. Under sex discrimination act 1975 in UK law not discrimination but relied on Equal treatment directive 76/207. Not been fully implemented but held it was sufficiently clear and imposed obligations as her employer was state arm
What case relates to horizontal direct effect
Francovich V Italian republic (1991)
What happened in francovich v Italian republic (1991)
Italian gov failed to implement a directive aimed at protecting wages of those who’s employed gone insolvent. Francovich ‘s employer went insolvent and couldn’t get wages so sued state and won for the lack of promptness of passing directive
What are the two cases the established the independence of the jury
Bushells case (1670) R v McKenna (1960)
What happened in Bushells Case (1670)
Several jurors wouldn’t convict Quaker activists of unlawful assembly. Trial judge wouldn’t accept not guilty verdict and ordered jurors to resume their deliberations without food or drink. When jurors still refused to convict the court fined them and committed them to prison till fines paid. On appeal, court of common pleas ordered juror release holding that jurors couldn’t be punished for verdict
What happened in R v McKenna (1960)
Judge at trail threatened jury that if verdict wasn’t returned in 10 mins then they’d be locked up all night. Jury then returned guilty verdict but defendants conviction quashed on appeal due to judge interference
What happened in R v Abdroikof, R v Green and R v Williamson (2007)
HoL considered appeal where police officer had been on jury.
Held the fact that one of the members being a police officer wasn’t an issue as that in itself didn’t make it unfair however if the police officer had knew someone on the case or worked at same police station as those in case then that would be unfair as bias
What happened in Hanif v United Kingdom
Police officer who was selected to be a juror immediately alerted court to fact he knew prosecution police witnesses. Evidence of that witness was crucial to case. Trial judge ruled this didn’t matter and the defendant was convicted and appealed. CoA upheld the conviction surprisingly, and EU court of HR ruled this police officer was in breach of Article 6(1) of HR with right to a fair trial.
What happened in the Pontings Case (1984)
Civil servant leaked info to an MP about the sinking of the General Belgrano ship in the falklands war and pleaded not guilty to Official secrets Act 1911. Jury refused to convict him even tho judge ruled he had no defence. This shows a jury is independent and if it decides on basis of fairness it’s decision can’t be challenged
What happened in R v Randle and Pottle (1991)
Defenders charged with helping the spy George Blake escape prison. Prosecution didn’t occur TIL 25 years after escapee when they wrote about what they’d done. Jury acquitted probably due to time lapse protest and protest to what they were being prosecuted with
What happened in R v Kronlid and others (1996)
Defendants admitted £1.5 mil damage to a plane and pleaded not guilty on basis the plane was going to be sent to Indonesia to attack the people of East Timor, and were acquitted by jury
What happened in R v Mirza (2004)
Defendant was a Pakistani who settled in UK in 1988. Had interpreter to help him in the trial and during it the jury sent notes asking why he needed one. Was convicted on 10:2 majority. 6 days after verdict a juror wrote to defendants counsel alleging there had been a theory from the start of the trial the interpreter was a ploy and was shouted down when she objected and reminded fellow jurors of judges directions
What happened in R v Connor and rollock (2004)
Juror wrote to crown court stating that while many jurors thought one of the other committed the stabbing they decided to convict both to teach them a lesson. 5 days after verdict but before sentencing passed. Juror said that jury should consider which one was responsible but people refused to listen saying they could be there for a week considering verdicts. HoL held s 8 of contempt of court act 1981 made it contempt to mention jury’s room going on even for appeal.
What happened in R v Young (Stephen) (1995)
Defendant charged with nurseling two and jury had to stay overnight in a hotel. Four jurors held a seance with a ouija board to contact the dead and ask who killed them. They returned guilty verdict next day and when ouija use known the CoA quashed conviction and ordered a retrial and also inquired into what happened as wasn’t part of jury room deliberations
What happened in R v Karakya (2005)
Defendant accused of rape. Juror did an internet search at home and printed out results. Jury convicted him but quashed as use of outside info. Another jury acquitted him
What happened in Sander v United Kingdom (2000)
Juror had written a note to judge with concern some jurors has made racist remarks and jokes. Judge asked jury to search consciouses. Tow letter revived the next day with one signed by all jurors denying it and another admitted to may have been doing it. Judge allowed trial to continue which EU court of HR held that trial shouldn’t have been able to carry on as risk of racial bias
What happened in R v Taylor and Taylor (1993)
Two sisters charged with murder. Some papers published still photos taken from a video which gave false impressions on whatbwas going on. Jury convicted them and judge gave leave to appeal due to possible influence of the pics. CoA quashed the convictions
What happened in R v Twomey and others (2009)
Defendants charged with various offences connected to a large robbery at Heathrow. Three previous trials hadcollapsed and there had been a serious attempt at jury tampering in the last of these. Prosecution applied to a single judge for trial to take place without jury but judge refused. CoA overturned this and said trial should take place without a jury
What happened in KS v R (2010)
Several trials on fraud allegations committed by defendant. Not until 10th trial jury tampering occurred. Occurred as smokers all smoked in the same area and a friend of the defendant approached a juror. CoA refuses a trial by judge alone. Pointed out causal arrangements wouldnt be allowed again. Approach had also been opportunistic rather than deliberate therefore no need for trial by judge alone
What is Shaw v DPP (1962) and what does it link to
Conduct criminalised by judges
D published a ladies directory of prostitutes with photos etc. Charged with conspiracy to corrupt public morals. HoL acceleged rhis was a common law offence and not statutory
What is woolmington v DPP (1935) and what does it relate to
Actus Reus and mens rea required
D wife left him and gone to live with mother. Claimed would kill himself if she didn’t come back. Carried sawed off shotgun l. Threatens to shoot him self when wide wouldn’t come back and accidentally gun went off n killed him. Judge put burden of proof Of proving accident on D which was held in HOL to not be correct
What is R v Mitchell (1983) and what is it related to
Actus reus and involuntary nature
D tried to push in a post office queue and punched a 72 year old man who criticised him for it. The man fell back onto an 89 year old woman who was consequently knocked over and injured. v LATER DIED. D was convicted of manslaughter and the man who was punched wasn’t liable for any act.
What is R v Larsonneur (1933) and what does it relate to
involuntary act causing a state of affairs leading to conviction.
D o9rdered to leave UK so went to Ireland instead. Ireland deported her against her will back to the uk. Arrested and charged with being ‘an alien to whom leave to land in the uk had been refused’. convicted as she was an alien who refused to leave and was ‘found in the UK’
What happened in R v Gibbons and Proctor (1918) and what does it relate to
Duty to act due to relationship
Father of 7 yo girl lived with a partner. F had several children from an earlier marriage and he and P kept her separate from other kids and starved her to death. Both charged with murder as F was father and P looked after the children too so was also under a duty to feed the child
What happened in R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) and what does it relate to
Voluntary duty of care
Stones elderly sister F had come to live with the family. She often stayed in her room n refused to eat. Dob had washed f and made her food on more than one occasion. F died from malnutrition. Both guilty of manslaughter as F was stones sister and D had previously helped F so took up a duty of care
R v Evans (2009) and what does it relate to?
V duty of care and chain of events
V 16 and heroin addict, lived with mum n older half sister. half sis bought her some heroin n she self injected. V overdosed and neither m or hs got help, instead put her to bed n hoped shed recover. V died and convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. M owed duty as daughter and hs appealed saying she didn’t owe duty of care. COA upheld on the basis hs had created a life threatening state of affairs
R v Dytham (1979) what did it relate to
duty via official position
D was a police officer on duty. Saw V being thrown out of a nightclub 30 yards away n saw 3 men kicking him to death. D did nothing and after told a bystander he was going off duty and left the scene. convicted of misconduct in public office as he was a police officer who neglected his duty
r v miller (1983) and relate to
Chain of events
D squatting and lit a cig. Fell asleep while smoking it. Woke up and found mattress on fire, didn’t bother to do anything so went into another rom to sleep. House caught fire and convicted of arson as he didn’t take ‘reasonable steps’ (HOL) to deal with fire
DPP v Santa Bermudez (2003) and what it relates to
Chain of events
policewoman asked D if he had any needled or sharp objects on him before searching him. He said no and she was injured and bleeding by a needle found in his pocket. D was convicted of assault occasioning ABH under s47 of OATP Act 1861
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) and what does it relate to
Duty of care of drs
B was a man crushed by crowd at Hillsborough disaster 1989. Stopped oxygen getting to his brain making him have severe brain damage (PVS) unable t do anything or be aware of anything. Been like this for 3 years and drs asked court for a ruling to say they could stop feeding him through his tube. Court rued yes as in best interests of patient
R v Khan and Khan (1998) and what it relates to
issues deciding when due exists
Ds supplied heroin to a new user who took it in their presence n collapsed. Left her alone and when they came back she died. Conviction for unlawful manslaughter quashed by COA who also said there could be a duty to summon medical assistance in certain circumstances so D could be liable for failing to do so.
R v Pagett (1983) and what does it relate to
Factual cause and BUT FOR test
D took prep gf from her home by force n held hostage. Police told him to surrender and D came out with girl in front of him shooting police. Police killed girl with their bullets but P manslaughter as she wouldn’t have died BUT FOR him using her as a shield
Rv Hughes (2013) and relate to
Factual cause isn’t enough for liability
D driving camper van faultlessly when a car came swerving all over the road and crossed to Ds side of road. Car smashed to D and and tipped over and leaving the other driver who was on heroin suffer fatal injuries. D wasn’t insured and didn’t have full driving license, charged under s 3ZB Of RTA act 1988 with causing death by driving wo a license and uninsured. SC quashed as even tho D actual cause as V wouldn’t have died but for D being on the road, it wasn’t enough to be a legal effective cause. THERE HAD TO BE SOMETHING ABOUT DRIVING THAT WAS OPEN TO CRITICISM AND WHICH CONTRIBUTED IN MORE THAN A MINIMAL WAY to the death.
R v Kimsen (1996) and what does it link to
legal cause ‘more than a slight or trifling link’.
D involved in a high speed chase with a friend. D lost control of car and other friend killed in crash. Evidence that happened just before this isn’t clear. Trial judge directed the jury that Ds driving ‘did not have to be the principal/substantail CoD AS LONG AS you are sure that it WAS a cause and there MUST BE SoMETHING MORE than a slight or trifling link’
R v Blaue(1975) and link
Thin skull rule- TAKE THE VICTIM AS YOU FIND THEM
Young woman stabbed by D. Needed a blood transfusion but was a Jehovah so refused. She died and D convicted of murder as even tho she denied the transfusion he had to take the victim as he found them
R v Smith (1959) and link
breaking the chain of causation - 3rd party act
Soldier stabbed another soldier in the lung and was carried to made centre by other soldiers but was dropped on the way. Med centre staff gave him artificial respiration which pressed on his chest making injury worse. Affected his recovery chances by up to 75%. He died and original attacker guilty as the wound was still ‘operating’ at ToD and was a ‘substantial’ CoD
R v Cheshire (1991) and link
Breaking causation chain-3rd party
D shot V in thigh and stomach. V needed a tracheotomy due to developed breathing issues and TW MONTHS AFTER ATTACK V died from tracheotomy complications and wounds had virtually healed. D still liable as it wasn’t ‘so independent’ of Ds attack and also the med treatment was not ‘so potent in causing death’
R v Jordan (1956) and link
Breaking causation chain-3rd party
V stabbed in stomach, when wounds almost healed he was given an antibiotic and suffered an allergic reaction. Dr stopped use of it but next day another dr gave him a large dose and he died. In this cause the dosage was an intervening act
R v Malcherek(1981) and link
life support machines and breaking the chain
D stabbed wife in stomach, put on life support. ruled brain dead and machine switched off. D charged with murder and judge didn’t let causation issue go to jury. D convicted and CoA upheld it. Switching off a life support machine DOES NOT BREAK THE CHAIN
R v Roberts(1972) and link
Victims own act and chain of causation
Girl jumped from a car to escape Ds sexual advances. Car travelling bw 20-40mph and girl injured when she jumped. D held liable. CoA upheld Ds conviction for assault causing ABH under s47 of OATP Act 1861. Test held as ‘Was V’s reaction the natural result of what D said and did, in the sense that it was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what D was saying or doing?If v does something so daft or unexpected that NO REASOANBLE MAN COULD BE EXPECTED TO FORSEE IT then it is only in a very remote and unreal sense of consequences of Ds assault. It is really occasioned by a VOLUNTARY ACT on part of V which could NOT BE REASONABLY FORSEEB and which BREAKS THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION between assault and harm or injury’ (basically`NG if it couldn’t be foreseen by the reasonable man)
R v Marjoram (2000) and link
3rd party act and breaking causation chain
Several people plus D shouted abuse and kicked down Ds hostel room door. Forced to pen and V jumped/fell from window and suffered serious injuries. Ds conviction for ABH upheld by CoA as it as reasonably foreseeable that V would fear the use of violence against him and the only escape was via window
R v William and Davis (1992) and link
Unreasonable reaction and breaking causation
hitchhiker jumper from William’s car and died due to head injuries caused by his head hitting the road. Car travelling about 30 mph. Attempt to steal victims wallet which is why he jumped (prosecution alleged). CoA said Vs act had to be reasonably foreseeable and in proportion to the threat. V made a new intervening act and therefore broke the chain
R v Dear (1996) and link
V refusing treatment
D slashed v several times with a Stanley knife severing an artery. V didn’t get wounds seen to and possibly opened wound further making them worse. V died from blood loss and Ds murder conviction upheld by CoA. Court held that providing wounds were operating and substantial cause that D liable even if V had effectively decided to commit suicide by making them worse
Define intent
A decision to bring about the prohibited consequence (Mohan 1975)
Define reckless
The D saw the risk and took it anyway (Cunningham 1957)
What happened in Moloney (1985)
D and step father drunk lots of booze at a party. After they were heard laughing then a shot. D phoned the police to say he’d just murdered his step dad, D said they had been seeing who could load and fire a shotgun quickest. SD said D hadn’t got the guts to pull trigger. D’ I didn’t aim the gun I just pulled the trigger and he was dead’. Convicted of murder but quashed in appeal as the HOL ruled that FORESIGHT OF CONSEQUENCES IS ONLY EVIDENCE OF INTENTION AND NOT INTENTION IN ITSELF’ (still law today)
Hancock and shankland (1986)?
D miners on a strike. Tried to prevent another miner from going to work by pushing a concrete block from a bridge on to the road along which he was being driven to work. Block struck windscreen of taxi and killed driver. Trial judge used moloney guidelines to direct the jury and Ds convicted of murder. On appeal the CoA quashed their convictions which was upheld by HOL
Nedrick (1986)
D poured paraffin through letterbox of woman’s house and set it alight as he had grudge against her. A child died in fire. D convicted of murder but CoA quashed and switched to manslaughter. To hELP jury judges said:
• how probable was consequence which resulted from Ds voluntary act
•did d forsee that consequence
‘Jury should be directed that they are not entitle to INFER the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or SBH was a virtual certainty due to the result of Ds actions and the D appreciated that was the case’
Woollin (1998)
D threw three month old baby towards pram which was against a wall 3/4 feet away and baby got head injuries and died. Court realised this had to be a virtual certainty and D must have seen this. When jury satisfied on these points then evidence which jury could find intention.
‘Jury should be directed that they are not entitled to FIND’
Re A (2000)
Drs wanted to operate on conjoined twins knowing virtually certainty one would die. Court thought that foresight = intention (woolin)
Matthews and Alleyne 2003)
D threw V into river where V drowned. Court said woollin meant foresight of consequences not intention and is a rule of evidence. If a jury decides that the D foresaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury then entitled to find intention but they don’t have to
Cunningham (1957)
D tore gas meter off a wall to steal the money causing gas to leak into the house next door. D charged with offence under s23 of malicious administering a noxious thing, it was held he wasn’t guilty as didn’t realise the risk of gas escaping into next door. Not intended to cause harm or take a risk
What case gave us ‘malicious = reckless)
Savage(1992)
Met Police comm v Caldwell (1981)
D got very drunk and set fire to a hotel. Fire put out quickly without serious damage being caused. D charged under s 1(2) of crim damage act 1971 but argued he was so drunk he didn’t realise risk of endangering people’s lives but conviction upheld
G and another (2003)
D two boys 11 & 12 who set fire to newspapers in a shop yard and threw them under wheelie bins thinking fire would go out but instead caused £1 mil damage. Convicted but quashed by HOL as boys didn’t realise risk
Latimer 1886
D aimed blow with belt at man who attacked him but got a woman in the face instead. D guilty of assault
Pembilton 1874
D threw a stone to hit people who he’d been fighting with but got a window instead. Intention to hit people couldn’t be transferred to a window
Adomako 1994
Negligence ‘failure to meet standards of the reasonable man
Gnango (2011)
G and BM shot st each other BM hit passerby and killed her. Both convicted of murder with G being quashed by COA but reinstated by HOL. Held he was guilty as he attempted to murder BM but was also aiding and abetting to his murder. BM would have been guilty of murder but transferred malice. Gnango participated in attempted murder of himself therefore guilty of murder of V via transferred malice
Thabo Meli v R (1954)
Ds attacked a man and believed they’d killed them. They pushed the body over a low cliff. In fact the man who survived the attack but died of explosure when unconscious at foot at the cliff. Held Ds guilty of murder —-> men’s and actus reus combined in a series of acts
Church 1965
men’s and actus reus combined in a series of acts
Fagan v met police com (1986)
Continuing act for the actus reus and mens rea then the two conincide and D is guilty
Pharmaceutical society of GB v storkwain Ltd 1986
D charged for supplying drugs to someone w/o genuine prescription even tho d hasn’t acted negligently and the forgery was sufficient to deceive pharmacists
Larsonneur (1933)
No men’s rea but charged with going to uk even tho wasn’t voluntary
Winzar v chief constable of Kent 1983
Guilty as found drunk in a public place even tho police took him there. No men’s rea
Cases that show the idea men’s rea not req
Prince (1875)
Hibbert (1869)
Callow V Tillstone (1900)
Liable if cvoluntary act caused the prohibited consequence inadvertently
Is due diligence a defence
Sometimes but not in Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999(
Is defence of a mistake available in strict liability
Sometimes ya (sherras v de rutzen 1895) sometimes no (cundy v le cocq 1884)
Example of common law strict liability
Gibson and sylveire(1991)
What happens if no MR in S.L
Judges will presume there is one (Sweet v Parsley 1969)
What case did the P.C say the presumption of MR will be strong if the offence is ‘truly criminal’
Gammon (1984)
Examples of ‘quasi crimes’ with cases
Breaches of regulation:
- selling food (callow v tillstone 1900)
- Selling alcohol (Cundy v Le Cocq 1884)
- Building regs (Gammon 1984)
- sales of lottery tickets to an underage child (Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah 1999)
- Regulations to prevent pollution (Alphacell Ltd v Woodward 1972)
Penalty of imprisonment an important factor for which S.L case?
B v DPP (2000)
What case held broadcasting without a license to be of social concern
R v Blake 1997
What case held you can be guilty of a happening caused by a risk you are unaware of
Environment agency v Brock plc (1998)
What case was the point raised that S.L can be against human rights
R v G (2008)
When was it held silent phone calls can be assault
R v Ireland 1997
When was it held verbal/written words can be assault?
R v Constanza 1997
When was it held that immediate doesn’t mean instantaneous but imminent
smith v Chief superintendent of woking police station 1983
When was it held that words indicating there is no violence can prevent an assault
Tuberville v savage 1669
Force defined as ‘slightest touching’ in where?
Collins v Willcock 1984
Where was it held that touching clothing can be assault
R v Thomas 1985
Where was it held that an indirect act can be battery
DPP v K 1990
Where was it held that an omission can be a battery
DPP v Santa Bermudez (2003)
where was it held that AR for battery is reckless or intent
DPP v Majewski 1976
In what case was ABH defined
Miller 1954 as ‘any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health of the victim’
Where was actual defined
R v Chan fook 1994- not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant
Where was it held that psychiatric injury = ABH
R v Chan fook 1994
Where was it held that cutting V’s hair is ABH
DPP V Smith (Michael) 2006
Where was it held that bodily harm can be interpreted as to include recognisable pyschatric injury in s18, s20 and 47 OAPA 1861
R v Burstow 1997
What case tells us that theres no need for D to intend or be reckless as to whether ABH caused
R v Roberts 1971
Where was it held that momentary loss of consciousness = ABH
R(T) v DPP (2003)
Where is wound defined
Eisenhower 1983 ‘cut or break in the continuity of the skin’
Is a broken bone considered a wound
no unless skin broken (Wood 1830)
Where is s20 defined as really serious harm
DPP v Smith 1961
Where was it decided that severity of injuries should take into account age and health of v for s20
Bollom (2004)
When was it held that giving someone HIV is s20
R v Dica 2004
Where was it decided that inflict does not require a technical assault or battery
R v Burstow 1997
Where was it confirmed that maliciously =/= reckless
R v Parmenter 1991
Where was it established that intent to wound isn’t enough for s18
R v Taylor 2009
Where was it decided that if a D is trying to resist arrest the level of intention is lower . Must prove resist arrest is intent but injury caused is reckless
R v Morrison (1989)
Where was negligence defined as failing to do something a reasonable person would do
Blythe v Birmingham waterworks co 1865
Where was the neighbour principle established
Donaghue v stevenson 1932
Which case established the three part negligence test
Caparo 1990
What case discusses ‘damage or harm reasonably forseeable’
Kent v Griffiths (2000)
Which case establishes proximity of a relationship
Bourhil v Young (1943) OR McLoughlin v Obrien (1982)
Which case discusses ‘fair just and reasonable to impose a duty’
Hill v chief constable of West Yorkshire 1990
Which case discusses the standard of which professionals are judged
Bolam (1957) : does Ds conduct fall below standard of competent professional and is there a substantial body of opinion which would support Ds course of action
Which case tells us learners are judged as professionals
Nettleship v Weston 1971
Which case tells us people are judged by standard of their age
Mullin v richards 1998
What is the case for risk factors regarding special characteristics
Paris v Stepney 1951
Case for size of risk
Bolton v Stone 1951 (lower risk of injury the smaller precautions
Haley (1965) greater risk greater precautions
Case for appropriate precautions
Latimer 1953
Case for unknown risks
Roe 1954
Case for public benefit
Watt 1954
But for test in civil?
Barnett 1969
Remoteness of damage case
Wagon Mound 1961
Type of injury foreseeable but way it happened wasn’t case
Hughes v Lord advocate 1963
injury unusual but way it happened foreseeable case
Bradford v Robinson rentals 1967
type of injury not reasonably foreseeable
Doughty v Turner asbestos 1964
Eggshell skull case
Smith v Leech brain co 1962
Res ipsa loquitur case
Scott v London and st Katherine docks 1865
Case telling us there can be multiple occupiers
Wheat v E Lacon co ltd 1966
case telling us that if a property is empty but someone is in control then it has occupation
Harris v Birkenhead corp 1976
Case telling us that who is control of premises is sometimes influenced via insurance policy, and sometimes no one is in charge
Bailey v Armes 1999
Case telling us an occupier just needs to make premises reasonably safe
Laverton v Kiapasha takeaway supreme 2002
Case telling us that:
- tripping ans slipping are everyday occurences
- risk is only reasonably foreseeable if there is a real source of danger which a reasonable person would recognise as obliging the occupier to take remedial action.
Dean and chapter of Rochester cathedral v debell 2016
Case telling us an occupier should guard against allurement to a child
Glasgow corp v Taylor 1922
case telling us that if very young kids are involved then courts are usually reluctant to make the occupier liable as parents should be in charge
Phipps v Rochester corp 1955
case telling us that if an allurement exists then theres no liability on the occupier if damage or injury reasonably foreseeable(kids)
Jolley v London borough of Sutton 2000
Case telling us an occupier won’t be liable if C injured themselves due to a risk they should be aware of due to their trade
Roles v Nathan 1963
case that established a duty of humanity in OL 84
BRB v Herrington 1972
case saying occupier 84 not liable if trespasser injured by obvious danger
Ratcliff v McConnell 1999
CASE SAYING TIME OF DAY AND TIME OF YEAR INJURY HAPPENED IS RELEVANT IN OL 84
Donoghue v folkestone properties 2003
case saying an occupier 84 doesn’t have to spend £££ on making the premises safe from obvious dangers
Tomlinson v congleton borough council 2003
case saying an occupier 84 won’t be liable if he had no reason to suspect a trespasser
Higgs v foster 2004
case saying occupier 84 not liable if he isn’t aware of the danger or had 0 reason to expect it
Rhind 2004
cases saying same rules apply to child trespassers in ol 84
keown v coventry healthcare NHS trust (2006)
Baldaccino v west wittering 2008
