Cases

Question 1

Rice v Connolly (1966)

Stop and Search

Answer 1

Refused to answer questions
Arrested for police obstruction
Conviction quashed - nomlegal duty to answer questions

Question 2

R v Bristol (2007)

Stoo and Search - Police ID

Answer 2

Officers stopped him from swallowing ‘drugs’
Arrested, no drugs found
Appeal held - officers didn’t ID themselves

Question 3

Castorina v Cheif Constable of Surrey (1988)

Arrest

Answer 3

Arrested + detained as she was only suspect
Officer’s belief based on this, not info or fact
She was later released without charge

Question 4

R v. Badham (1987)

Search

Answer 4

Sec 32 not used at right time
No authorisation for Sec 18
Wasn’t arrested at home so no power for property search

Question 5

Da Silva (2006)

Prosecution

Answer 5

Challenged decision of not prosecuting officers who fatally shot her cousin
Court considered Art 2 Human Right Acr 1988
Court didn’t rule in her favour

Question 6

Mohan (1975)

Direct Intention

Answer 6

Sped toward officer after initially slowing down
Determine whether he had direct intention + knew bodily harm was likely
Judge directed Jury poorly, appeal was held

Question 7

R v. Woollin (1998)

Indirect Intention

Answer 7

Deemed he was almost sure the injury would happen due to his actions
He was aware this was the case
Appealed that Judge widened the meaning of murder
Charged with manslaughter of 3 month child

Question 8

R v. Cunningham (1957)

Recklessness

Answer 8

Caused gas leak by stealing gas meter money, which killed next door neighbor
Acted recklessly by causing the result
Reckless because he knew risk but acted anyway
Risk is unreasonable

Question 9

R v. Adomanko (1994)

Gross Negligence

Answer 9

Patient oxygen pipe disconnected and they died, defendant failed to see or respond
Deemed in right state of mind at time of actus reus
Gross Negligence Manslaughter, fell seriously short of what is reasonable

Question 10

Gomez (1993)

Appropriation

Answer 10

Shop assistant took checks knowing they were stolen
Proces you can consent to theft
Property can still be appropriated even if owner has given consent

Question 11

R v. Gosh (1982)

Dishonesty

Answer 11

Claimed money he wasn’t entitled to

Court use two-partctesr for dishonesty - both must be satisfied for conviction

Question 12

Veumyl (1989)

Intention to Permanently Deprive

Answer 12

Stole money - claimed would return it after weekend

Intent to return doesn’t rid of fact he intended to permanently deprive the original property

Question 13

Bow (1976)

TWOC - Taking the Conveyance

Answer 13

Released handbrake, rolled 200 yards
Taken + moved how a conveyance would be used
Had to be in/on vehicle to be TWOC, if not its theft

Question 14

Whittaker v Campell (1984)

TWOC - Owner Consent

Answer 14

Purchased car, sold it and disappeared and company wanted the care back
Use of conveyance must be in scope of permission
Defence - genuine belief they would’ve given permission

Question 15

Brown (1985)

Burglary - Entry to Premises

Answer 15

Defendant had upper half of body inside shop window when stealing
Debate on whether he really entered and what entry means
Appeal dismissed - he had intent + entry was ‘effective’

Question 16

R v. Jones & Smith (1976)

Burglary - Trespassing

Answer 16

Both entered Smith’s dads house and stole 2 TV sets
Smith said dad gave permission
Appeal dismissed - still trespasses with intent to steal beyond permission

Question 17

R v. Wellington (1979)

Burglary- Trespassijf Building or Part Thereof

Answer 17

Owpend till to steal cash as customer
Left when saw it was empty
Appealed because he didn’t know he was a trespassers
Appeal dismissed - counter still part of building + had intent to steal

Question 18

R v. Robinson (1977)

Robbery- No Theft = No Robbery

Answer 18

Defendant approached husband about money, fight, husband dropped money, def picked up money then demanded the rest
Arrest quashed as money wasn’t taken if he believed he had legal right to it

Question 19

R v. Dawson (1976)

Robbery - Force

Answer 19

Victim surrounded and pushed , wallet stolen
Appealed - push isn’t enough for actus reus of robbery
Appeal dismissed- threat of force enough
Doesn’t matter whether def was in fear or not
Down to def intent

Question 20

R v. White (1911)

Homicide - Factial Causation

Answer 20

Def poisoned mum who died from unrelated heart attack
He planned to kill her after several more doses
Appeal requested whether def liable + whether dose held enough intent
Mother would’ve died in the same way regardless

Question 21

R v. Kinsey (1996)

Homicide - Legal Causation

Answer 21

Death by dangerous driving case

Dangerous driving by def was only cause needed, so chain of causation established

Question 22

R v. Jordan (1956)

Homicide - Things Likely to Break Chain of Causation

Answer 22

Def stabbed victim, victim treated and given antibiotics unnecessarily
Victim died from allergic reaction
Medical act not foreseeable as it was so negligent
Medical treatment = legal cause of death

Question 23

R v. Roberts (1971)

Homicide - Things NOT Likely to Break Chain of Causation

Answer 23

Def made sexual advances, she jumped out car and was injured, def appealed
Victim actions didn’t break chain as they were reasonably foreseeable

Question 24

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Breach of Duty of Care

Answer 24

Owed to those who you can see is likely to be injured by your actions
If you fail to meet it, duty breached
Def conduct must have fallen seriously short of what is reasonable

Question 25

DPP v Newbury (1976)

Unlawful Manslaughter

Answer 25

Kids three slab from bridge which killed train guard
4 requirements must be satisfied:

1) act intentional
2) act unlawful
3) act is objectively dangerous
4) act causes victim death