Cases Section 1B Flashcards

1
Q

Hill v Baxter

A

The actus reus must be voluntary

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

R v Gibbons and Proctor

A

Duty to act as parents. Omission

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

R v Stone and Dobbinson

A

Assumed duty to act. Omission

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

R v Pitttwood

A

Contractual duty to act. Omission

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

R v Dytham

A

Public duty to act. Omission

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

R v Miller

A

1.chain of events.Omission
2. ABH, result of harm or injury
3. Hurt/injury interferes with v’s health and discomfort

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

R v White

A

Factual causation ‘but for’ test

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

R v Smith

A

1.Operating and substantiating cause of death/injury
2. Act of 3rd party

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

R v Cheshire

A

Medical negligence will not break the chain

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

R v Roberts

A

Victims own actions are reasonable and foreseeable

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

R v Blaue

A

Thin skull rule

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

R v Mohan

A

Intention

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

R v Cunningham

A

Recklessness

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

R v Latimer

A

Transferred malice: D meant to strike indented V but got nearby woman instead

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

R v Pembiltion

A

Transferred malice: can’t transfer malice if no intent

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

Fagan v MPC

A
  1. Establishing Actus reus of assault
  2. Coincidence rule
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v Thabo Meli

A

Coincidence rule: D had the MR of the offence but the AR didn’t happen until later

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

Sweet v Parsley

A

Mens rea is presumed necessary unless statute states otherwise

19
Q

Smith v Supt of Working

A
  1. Apprehend
  2. Immediate
20
Q

R v Logdon

A

V can have an awareness of violence even if D is joking

21
Q

R v Ireland

A

Unlawful violence can be apprehended due to sielest phone calls

22
Q

R v Contanza

A

Unlawful violence can be apprehended due to words/letters

23
Q

Tubercular v Savage

A

Words can nullify an assault

24
Q

Cole v Turner

A

Slightest touch done in anger

25
Collins v Wilcock
Victim must not consent to touch
26
Haystead v DPP
Application can be indirect
27
Savage
1.apply unlawful physical force 2. Words can nullify assault
28
Romford jury
Challenge to the array
29
White v Jones
Solicitors negligence
30
Dpp v smith
GBH = really serious harm
31
Burstow
GBH can be serious psychiatric harm and can be indirect
32
Dicia
Biological harm can be GBH
33
R v Brown and Stratton
Less injuries combined can be GBH
34
Mortiary
A break to the second layer of the skin is wounding
35
Eisenhower
Internal bleeding doesn’t count as wounds
36
Ireland
Silent phone calls
37
Thabo meli
Coincidence rule
38
Blaue
Thin skull rule
39
Woolin
Oblique intent
40
Gammon v HK
Rules of strict liability
41
Mitchell
Transfered malice: must be same typa crime
42
Chan Fook
More than trivial less than serious
43
DPP v K
ABH can be indirectly caused