law mock cases Flashcards
words can negate an assault
tuberville v savage
words are not enough to negate an assault
r v light
immediate doesn’t mean at the time but imminently
smith v chief superintendent of woking police
there can be no assault without apprehension
r v lamb
touching of clothes can constitute battery
r v thomas
battery can be an omission
dpp v santa-bermudez
battery can be an indirect act
dpp v k
abh can be psychiatric harm
r v chanfook
a temporary loss of consciousness can constitute abh
t v dpp
abh is defined as “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim”
r v miller
cutting hair can be abh
dpp v smith (michael)
a wound must be a break in both layers of the skin
r v eisenhower
knowingly infecting someone with a virus is gbh
r v dica
gbh is defined as serious harm
r v saunders
foetuses are not reasonable people in being
atorney-general reference no3 1998
braindead people aren’t reasonable people in being
malcherek v steel
information cannot be stolen
oxford v moss
selling property is an appropriation
r v pitham and hehl
switching price labels is an appropriation
r v morris
body parts are property
r v kelly and lindsay
consent without deception can still be theft
r v hinks
belonging to is possession and control
r v turner
it is theft if there is an obligation to deal with something in a certain way
r v davidge and bunnet
no intention to permanently deprive
r v easom
forcefully grabbing property is enough force for robbery
r v clouden
robbery is a continuous act
r v hale
attempted murder
r v white
abnormality of mental functioning
r v byrne
fear trigger
r v ward
cannot incite violence as an excuse to use loss of control
r v dawes
defined disease of the mind
r v hennessy
self induced automatism is only for specific intent
r v bailey
voluntary intoxication succeeded
sheehan v moore
dutch courage isn’t intoxication
AG for northern ireland v gallagher
voluntary intoxication is reckless therefore satisfies the mens rea for basic intent crime
r v majewski
excessive force for self defence
r v martin
self defence not necessary
r v clegg
duress must be for a threat of serious injury or death
r v valderrama vega
