Cases & Statutes Flashcards by Eddie Moxon

Death occurs at brainstem death.

Malcharek & Steele - a doctor turning off life support isn’t a cause of death

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Murder can be an omission.

Gibbins & Proctor

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

A foetus isn’t a human in being so can’t be murdered, unless it is injured in the womb, birthed and then dies.

Attorney General’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) (1997)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

All intentional killing is unlawful.

Inglis

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Killing enemies in war is illegal if they are no threat.

Marine A

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Murder must have factual causation.

Marine A

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Act of D has to be more than a minimal cause of death.

Smith

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

D intended to kill V, is expressed malice.

Mohan

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

D intended to do a GBH but instead killed V, is implied malice.

Vickers

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Death a virtual certainty.

Decided by Woollin test, outcome virtually certain, D knew this - Matthes & Alleyne

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Defence of diminished repsonibilty.

s2 Homicide Act 1957

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Abnormality of mental functioning is ‘behaving in a way that ordinary people would say is abnormal’

Byrne

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Depression is a recognised medical condition.

Seers

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Schizophrenia is a recognised medical condition.

Simcox

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Sever PMT is a recognised medical condition.

Reynolds

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Paranoia is a recognised medical condition.

Marine A

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Battered spouse syndrome is a recognised medical condition.

Aluwahlia

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Grief adjustment syndrome is a recognised medical condition.

Dietschmann

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Acute voluntary intoxication is not a recognised medical condition.

Dowds

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

AMF provides an explanation for the killing.

Zebedee

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

When there is intoxication the jury ignores it.

Dietschmann

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Defence of loss of control,

s54 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Fear of serious violence is a qualifying trigger for loss of control.

Ward

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Having a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged is a qualifying trigger for loss of control.

Zebedee

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Infidelity is not a qualifying trigger for loss of control.

Clinton

Voluntary intoxication is not considered in for loss of control.

Asmalesh

Solicitors can be sued for contract and negligence.

White V Jones

Barristers can be sued for negligence.

Hall V Simons

Judges can't hear cases where they have a personal interest.

Pinochet

Decisions made in arbitration can be appealed to the KBD.

s68 Arbitration Act 1996

Case stated appeals can go to the supreme court.

C V DPP

Some cases can leap-frog the Court of Appeal.

R (Miller) V Prime Minister

For UAM D must have committed a criminal act not a tort

Franklin Lamb

For UAM must be a postivie act.

Lowe

For UAM the unlawful act must be objectively dangerous.

Church test

Fear not enough for UAM.

Dawson

For UAM some harm must be foreseeable.

JM & SM

For UAM factual causation is decided with the but for test.

White

For UAM legal causation must be more than a minimal cause of death but not the only.

Kimsey

For UAM D must have the MR for the unlawful act.

Newbury V Jones.

Elements of GNM.

Given in Adamako, explained in Broughton.

Duty of Care: landlord-tenant.

Singh

Duty of Care: doctor-patient.

Adamako

Duty of Care: parent-child.

Evans

Duty of Care: Captain-crew.

Litchfield

Criminals still owe each other a duty of care.

Wacker

Breach of duty for GNM can be omission.

Evans

For GNM, there must be a risk of death not just injury.

Misra

For GNM, a possibility of death isn't enough.

Rose

Created the defence of insanity.

M'Naghten

For insanity, there must be more than just forgetfulness, absentmindedness or confusion./

Clarke

A disease of the mind is physical or mental.

Kemp

Epilepsy is a disease of the mind.

Sullivan

Sleepwalking is a disease of the mind.

Burgess

A disease of the mind must have an internal cause.

Hennessy

Not knowing the nature of their act can be delusional states

Codere

For insanity, Knowing the nature of their act but not that it was wrong, is legally wrong not morally.

Windle.

For insanity, knowing an act is wrong and being unable to stop it isn't allowed.

Byrne

Automatism is an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind.

Bratty

For automatism, D must have a complete loss of control.

AG's ref. No.2 (1992)

For automatism, a blow to head is external.

Bratty

For automatism, a swarm of bees is an external factor.

Hill V Baxter

For automatism, PTSD is external.

R V T

For automatism, a sneezing fit is external.

Whoolley

Automatism can't be self-induced.

Clarke

Automatism can be taking medication and having an adverse reaction.

Bailey

When automatism is self-induced the intoxication rules apply.

Coley

Alcohol is a recognised intoxicant.

Majewski

Recreational drugs are recognised intoxicant

Majewski

Prescription drugs are recognised intoxicant

Hardie

Intoxication must be so strong that their is a complete absence of MR.

Beard

Drunken intent is still intent.

Sheehan & Moore

For intoxication, there has to be no MR not just a loss of inhibitions.

Kingston

Taking soporific drugs for the right reasons is involuntary intoxication.

Hardie

Choosing to consume is voluntary intoxication

Majewski.

Choosing to consume without knowing the strength is voluntary intoxication

Allan

Drinking for Dutch Courage is voluntary intoxication

Gallagher

Intoxicaiton is a defence to all specific intent crimes.

Beard

Intoxicated mistakes about self-defence is no defence

O'Grady

Intoxicated mistakes about criminal damage if D believes that the owner would have consented is a full defence.

Jaggard V Dickinson.

Manslaughter is a basic intent crime/.

Lipman

s20 and s47 are basic intent crimes.

Majewski

Rape is a basic intent crime.

Fotheringham.

Murder is a specific intent crime.

Beard

Consent can be expressed verbally or in writing.

Locke

Consent can be given if a genuine mistake is made about implied consent.

Aitken

Consent is invalid if given through fraud.

Tabassum

Consent is invalid if given through fear.

Olugjoba

Consent is invalid if given by someone without capacity.

Burrell & Harmer

Consent is invalid if it is not informed.

Dica

Consent is available for assaults and batteries.

Collins V Wilcock

Consent can be available for involuntary manslaughter.

Slingsby

For consent, horseplay cannot be hostile.

DDP V P

Solicitors can be sued in contract and negligence.

White V Jones

Barristers can be sued for negligence.

Hall V Simons

Judges can't hear cases with a personal interest.

Pinochet

Arbitration agreements can be enforced by the court.

s68 Arbitration Act 1996

D must have permission to appeal to Court of Appeal.

Criminal Appeal Act 1995

5 aims of sentencing set out.

s148 Criminal Justice Act 2003

Mandatory life sentence for a second serious sexual assault or violent crime.

LASPO 2012

Qualifications to be a juror.

Juries Act 1974

Jurors' criminal records can be checked

Mason

Array can be challenged if unrepresentative

Romford (Essex)

Jury can't be challenged for lack of ethnic diversity.

Ford

Jury's verdict independent from judge.

Penn & Mead

Juror's don't have to say how they reached their verdict.

Young

Juries can be nobbled (shouldn't be)

Twomey

Jurors shouldn't research a case, often use social media

Karayaka

If AR is involuntary it often isn't a crime

Hill V Baxter

State of Affairs crimes can be done involuntarily

Larsonneur

AR can be an omission

Special relationship - Gibbins & Proctor Volunteered to take care - Stone V Dobbinson D created danger - Miller Contractual - Pitwood In public office - Dytham Statutory - Road and Traffic Act 1988

'but for' test is used

White

D's conduct more than a minimal cause of death

Kimsey

Doctor's act only break chain of causation if it is so separate from D

Cheshire

Act of V doesn't break chain of causation if foreseeable

Jordan

Thin skull rule

Blaue

D can have MR before AR.

Thabo-Meli

AR can be done and then D forms MR

Fagan

Transferred malice

must be person to person (Latimer) not person-property (Pembliton)

For SLOs AR must be performed voluntarily

Winzar

SLOs are about public protection.

food hygiene - Callow V Tillstone environmental safety - Alphacell V Woodward young & vulnerable - Shah & Shah

Assault can be words

Constanza

Assault can be silence

Ireland

For assault, V had to believe force would be applied to them soon

Smith V CC of Woking Police

Assault and Battery charged.

s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

ABH is any hurt or injury interfering with health or comfort

Miller

ABH can be pyschiatric

Chan Fook

ABH can be unconciousness

DPP V T

ABH can be cutting hair

DPP V Smith

For ABH D only has to have MR for assault or battery

Savage

Internal bleeding isn't GBH

Eisenhower

GBH can be pyschiatric

Burstow

GBH can be biological

Dica

Multiple ABH can be GBH

Brown & Stratton

Codification of self-defence

s76 Criminal Justice Act 2008

For self-defence, jury decides some force is necessary

s76(4)

For self-defence, a sober mistake is allowed

s76(4)(b) Williams

For self-defence, an intoxicated mistake isn't allowed

s76(5) O'Grady

For self-defence, D can deal first blow

Beckford

For self-defence, D doesn't have to be unwilling to fight

Bird s76(6A) - jury decides if D can get 'Bird'

D can make preparations as self-defence

AG's Ref. 1984

For self-defence, D can't act in revenge

Hussain

D can make threats as self-defence

Counsins

For self-defence, force used must be proportionate to threat.

s76(1). not disproportionate for non-householders s76(6) not grossly disproportionate for householders s76(5A)

For self-defence, D doesn't have to know exact amount of force required.

s76(7)(a) Palmer

For self-defence, if force is disproportionate defence fails.

Clegg

For self-defence, danger must not have passed

Martin

For duress, must be threat of serious personal injury or death

Valderrama Vega

For duress, threat must be towards D or someone they feel responsible for.

Wright not society at large (Shayler)

For duress, D must believe that threat will be carried out immediately

Hasan

For duress by threat, threat must specify crime

Cole

Duress not available for murder or attempted murder

Howe Gotts

Duress not available if D could escape or seek police protection

Gill

Duress not available if D joins a violent gang or associates with a violent person

Hasan

For duress D has to believe the threat

Cairns

For Duress, would reasonable person resit threat

Bowen

Defence of necessity

Mouse's Case

Necessity usually used for medical cases

Re A

For necessity the evil inflicted mustn't be disproportionate

Quayle

Sets out Theft, Robbery and Burglary

Theft Act 1968

Definition of theft

s1(1)

Theft must be dishonest

s1(2)

Theft isn't dishonest if:

believe they have legal right (s2(1)(A)) (Holden) believe owner wouldv'e consented (s2(1)(B)) believe the owner cannot be found (s2(1)(C)) (Small)

For theft, Ivey test used to decide if D is dishonest

Barton & Booth

For theft, must be an appropriation

For theft, appropriation is assuming any rights of the owner

Selling - Pitham interfering with owner's rights (Morris) Consent irrelevant (Lawrence) D doesn't have to possess (Pitham) Dishonestly accepting gifts (Hinks) Not a continuing Act (Atakpu & Abrahams)

For theft, must be of property

s4 Not Property: Land s4(2) Wild foliage s4(3) Wild creatures s4(4) Confidential Info. (Oxford & Moss) Corpse (Kelly)

For theft, must belong to another

s5 Can steal your own stuff (Turner)

For theft, there must be intention to permanently deprive.

s6 Treating property as own (Lavender_ Includes property if it loses some of its goodness (Lloyd)

For robbery, there must be a theft

Guy

For robbery, jury decides if there is force

Dawson & James

For robbery, snatching isn't force

RP & Others

For robbery, V doesn't have to be in fear if D wanted to cause fear

B & R V DPP

For robbery, Force can be applied indirectly

Corcoran V Anderton

For robbery, force must be immediately before or at the time of stealing

Hale

For robbery, force must be used in order to steal

James

For burglary, entry must be only effective

Ryan

For burglary, entry includes any inhabited vehicle or vessel

s9(4)

For burglary, a building doesn't have to be a building

B & S v Leathley

For burglary, D can become a trespasser

Smith V Jones

Attempted crimes

Criminal Attempts Act 1981

For attempts, must be more than merely preparatory

decided by jury (Campbell) embarked on crime proper (Gullefer) moved from planning and preparation to implementation and execution (Geddes)

For attempts, D doesn't have to have done final act

AG's Ref 1992

For attempts, recklessness about consequences not sufficient

Millard & Vernon

For attempts, reckless about circumstances can be sufficient

Khan

For attempted murder, the only intent is to kill

Whybrow

For attempted theft the intention is to steal 'contents'

AG's Ref

For attempts, D can attempt impossible

Shivpuri

For attempts, there is no defence of withdrawal

Toothill

Created negligence.

Donoghue V Stevenson

Existing precedent to decide if there's a duty of care

Robinson

For Caparo Test, harm must be forseeable.

Jolley V Sutton LBC

For Caparo Test, parties must be sufficiently proximate.

Bourhill V Young

For Caparo Test, it must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.

Hill V CC of W Yorkshire Police

Duty of Care is breached if D did what a reasonable person wouldn't do, or didn't do what a reasonable person would do.

Blyth V Birmingham Waterworks Company Ltd.

Things considered in negligence for a breach of duty.

Age - Mullins V Richards Professionals up to the standard of their profession - Bolam. DIY held up to standard of an average DIY enthusiast - Wells V Cooper Inexperience not considered - Nettleship V Western

Risk factors in negligence.

Likelihood of harm - Haley V London Electricity Board. Magnitude of harm - Paris V Stepney Practicality of precautions - Latimer V AEC Benefits for society - Watt V Hertfordshire CC.

For negligence, must be factual causation

Barnett V Chelsea & Kensington Hospitals

For negligence, damage must not be too remote

Wagon Mound

For negligence, thin skull rule applies.

Smith V Leech Brain

Judge decides who is an occupier based on case facts.

Wheat V Lacon

For Occupiers' Liability 1957, definition of a premises

s1(3)

For Occupiers' Liability 1957, a lawful visitor has the occupier's invitation.

s1(2)

For Occupiers' Liability 1957, lawful visitor can have acquired license over the premisis

Lowery V Walker

For Occupiers' Liability 1957, there's a duty to ensure the visitor is reasonably safe.

s2(2)

For Occupiers' Liability 1957, standard of care higher for children

Jolley V Sutton LBC.

For Occupiers' Liability 1957, standard lower for workmen

Roles V Nathan

For Occupiers' Liability 1957, an occupier can discharge their duty with an effective warning

s2(4)(a)

For Occupiers' Liability 1957, D not liable if caused by an independent, trustworthy contractor.

s2(4)(b) Haseldene V Daw

Defences for Occupiers' Liability 1957

Contributory negligence - s2(3) Volenti non fit injuria - s2(5)

For Occupiers' Liability 1984, a premises includes any land or property including outdoor fire escapes.

Keown V Coventry NHS Trust

For Occupiers' Liability 1984, duty is to prevent against things inherently dangerous.

s1(3). D must know the danger exists - s1(3)(a). D must know V is near the danger - s1(3)(b). D can prevent the risk - s1(3)(c)

For Occupiers' Liability 1984, D must not have taken reasonable precautions.

s1(4)

For Occupiers' Liability 1984, warnings can be used to avoid liabilty.

s1(5)

Almost any sign is reasonable for an adult as a warning

Tomlinson

For private nuisance, C must have an interest in the land

Malone V Laskey - falling toilet.

For private nuisance, an annoyance isn't an unlawful interference.

Hunter V Canary Wharf - lost TV signal.

For private nuisance, duration is considered.

Crown River Cruises V Kimbolton Fireworks - firework debris damaged boats.

For private nuisance, locality is considered.

Sturges V Bridgman - what would be a nuisance in Belgravia would not be in Bermondsey.

For private nuisance, locality is not considered for property damage.

St Helens Smoking Co. V Tippling

For private nuisance, sensitivity is not considered

Robinson V Kilvert

For private nuisance, motive is considered

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm V Emmett

For private nuisance, planning permission does not change locality

Coventry V Lawrence

For private nuisance, public utility is not considered in judgement but might be in remedy

Miller V Jackson - cricket balls

For private nuisance, damage must be foreseeable

Cambridge Water Co. V Eastern Counties Leather.

Defences for private nuisance.

Prescription - Sturges V Bridgman Statutory Authority - Allen V Gulf Refining Ltd.

For Rylands V Fletcher, accumulation must be for D's benefit

Dunne V North West Gas Board

For Rylands V Fletcher, D must bring something and keep it

Giles V Walker

For Rylands V Fletcher, non natural means not commonplace

Rickards V Lothian

For Rylands V Fletcher, any storage of dyes or chemicals is non-natural

Cambridge Water Co. V Eastern Counties Leather

For Rylands V Fletcher, large quantities of something is unnatural

Harooni V Rustins

For Rylands V Fletcher, substance must have left D's property

Read V Lyons

For Rylands V Fletcher, damage must not be too remote

Cambridge Water Co. V Eastern Counties Leather

Defences for Rylands V Fletcher.

Act of stranger (Perry V Kendricks) Act of God (Carstairs V Taylor) Consent (Peters V Prince of Wales Theatre) C's fault (Dunn V Birmingham Canal Co.)

For vicarious liability, tort is usually negligence

Barnett V Chelsea & Kensington Hospitals.

For vicarious liability, can be a crime

Mohamud V Morrisons

For vicarious liability, control test

Yewens & Noaks

For vicarious liability, integration test

Jordan & Stephens

For vicarious liability, multiple reality test

Ready Mix Concrete

For vicarious liability, akin to employment test

Created in Lister V Hesley Hall. Confirmed in Ames V Nottingham County Council

For vicarious liability, D's organisation doesn't have to be commercial or for profit.

Cox V Ministry of Justice

For vicarious liability, acting in course of employment.

Authorised act in unauthorised way - Century Insurance Unauthorised act that benefits employer - Rose V Plenty Employee detoured but still on employer's business - Joel V Morrison Authorised act done over zealously - Vasey V Surrey Inns

For vicarious liability, not acting in course of employment

Outside scope of employment - Stoney V Ashton Expressly prohibited act - Iqbal V London Bus Company Employee going for a frolic on their own - Rose V Plenty

For contributory negligence, damages reduced by C's level of fault

Sayers V Harlow Urban District Council

For vicarious liability, there can be 100% reduction

Jayes V IMI Ltd.

For contributory negligence, C doesn't have to be at fault, but made it worse

Froom V Butcher

For volenti non fit injuria, must have agreed to it freely and voluntarily

Nettleship V Western

For volenti non fit injuria, , not available if C has a duty to act

Haynes V Harwood

Act poorly made without consultation

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Public bill

Equality Act 2010

Private bill

University College London Act 1996

Private members' bill

Abortion Act 1967

Hybrid bill

Channel Tunnel Act 1987

Sovereign signs Act

Royal Assent Act 1967

If HoL rejects bill it can be passed by HoC alone after a year

Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949

Parent Act for police powers

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Privy Council can make emergency laws

Civil Contingencies Act 2004

Privy Council alters laws

Cannabis upgraded to Class B under Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Complicated law made by government

Chemicals Regulation Act 2009

Councils can make By-laws

Local Government Act 1982

Example of a corporation by-law

South West Train Limited Railway make by-laws under s129 Railways Act 1993

Affirmative resolution in the parent Act

revised police codes under PACE 1984

Procedural ultra vires

Aylesbury Mushrooms

Substantive ultra vires

R V Home Secretary ex parte Fire Brigades Union

Wedensbury unresaonableness

R (Rogers) V Swindon NHS Trust

Literal rule given dictionary definition

R V Judge of the City of London Court

Literal rule can be stupid

Whitely V Chappell London & North Eastern Railway Co. V Berriman

Golden rule

Re Sigsworth

Mischief rule

Smith V Hughes

Purposive approach

Quintavalle

Dictionaries as an extrinsic aid

Cheeseman V DPP

Hansard as an extrinsic aid

Pepper V Hart

Treaties and Conventions as extrinsic aids

Fothergill V Monarch Airlines Ltd.

Act which gives definitions

Interpretation Act 1978 Month is a calendar month land is any building, structure, water, or estate. Gendered words are genderless

Human rights and interpretation

s3 HRA 1998 Godin-Mendoza V Ghaidan