Key Cases

Question 1

R v Dudley and Stephens: Situation

Answer 1

Sailors, shipwrecked by a storm, stranded for 18 days. Their cabin boy got sick. They drew straws to see who would get eaten but one man refused to draw. They killed and ate the boy instead.

Question 2

R v Dudley and Stephens: Ruling

Answer 2

Guilty of murder

Question 3

In R v Dudley and Stephens, what type of law did the sailors say they were following? Was this a valid defence?

Answer 3

The Custom of the Sea. No.

Question 4

In R v Dudley and Stephens, why was necessity not deemed a valid defence?

Answer 4

It’s too subjective. Who decided when it was necessary to kill the boy? Why was it necessary to kill that boy specifically? This defence only profits the perpetrator.

Question 5

In R v Dudley and Stephens, what was the duty that the judge said was most important?

Answer 5

Sacrificing oneself, just like Jesus.

Question 6

Donoghue v Stephenson: Situation

Answer 6

Donoghue drank a bottle of ginger beer made by Stephenson in a cafe. There was a decomposing snail in the bottle and Donoghue got sick. Sued Stephenson for the tort of negligence.

Question 7

Donoghue v Stephenson: Ruling

Answer 7

Guilty of the tort of negligence

Question 8

In Donoghue v Stephenson, what Principle was developed upon?

Answer 8

The Neighbour Principle: we a have a duty to anyone who could be reasonably foreseen as affected (injured) by our acts or omissions.

Question 9

Youssoupoff vs MGM Pictures: Situation

Answer 9

Princess Youssoupoff accused MGM of slander after the movie “Rasputin and the Empress” came out portraying a woman who bore striking resemblance to Youssoupoff getting raped.
The princess claimed this led to being shunned and avoided.

Question 10

Youssoupoff vs MGM Pictures: Ruling

Answer 10

Guilty of libel (not slander)

Question 11

What was so important about Youssoupoff vs MGM Pictures’ ruling?

Answer 11

Defamation in film was counted as libel not slander

Question 12

In Youssoupoff vs MGM Pictures, what were the arguments in defence of MGM?

Answer 12

• The movie was artistically valuable
• The plaintiff had not been identified in the film
• At most, the defamation was slander not libel

Question 13

R v Brown (The Spanner Case): Situation

Answer 13

5 Men had engaged in sadomasochistic homosexual sex and consented to the harm they received. No permanent injury was caused. None of them reported the event but they were caught in a police operation.

Question 14

R v Brown (The Spanner Case): Ruling

Answer 14

Guilty of Actual and Gross Bodily Harm

Question 15

What was so important about R v Brown (The Spanner Case)’s ruling?

Answer 15

Consent was not a valid defence for gross or actual bodily harm.

Question 16

In R v Brown (The Spanner Case), what were the arguments for a guilty ruling?

Answer 16

• Gay BDSM promoted a “cult of violence”
• Sadistic pleasure is an evil thing
• Cruelty is uncivilised
• Gay BDSM is not conducive to the enhancement of family life or societal welfare