legal systems cases, paper 1 sec a Flashcards
r v bushell
area: independence of the jury
point: independance of jury
facts: trial judge would not accept, wanted the jury to come back with a guilty verdict, ended up being fined and took them to prison until the fines were paid
r v mckenna
area: independence of the jury
point: independence of the jury
facts: judge threatened jury. if they did not return a verdict in the next 10 minutes they would be locked up
r v mason
area: juries - vetting
point: jurors may be checked for criminal records
facts: crown court for Northamptonshire had been allowing widespread use of vetting of criminal records
r v pointing
area: jury equity
point: jury decides cases on ‘fairness’ - jury equity
facts: a civil servant leaked information to an MP. jury refused to convict him even though the judge ruled he had no offence
r v randle and pottle
area: juries - equity
point: jury equity - can result in perverse decision
facts: jury acquitted - defendant charged from spying - case 25 years after escape
r v mirza
area: secrecy of the jury
point: court cannot inquire into discussions in a jury room
facts: interpreter used - convicted
r v young
area: exception to the jury independence/secrecy
point: complete repudiation of the oath taken - they have used another method to make their decision
facts: defendant charged with murder of 2 people. jury vs ouija board to contact dead. conviction quashed
r v karakaya
area: exceptions to secrecy
point: extraneous material introduced to jury room not allowed
facts: internet search on defendant and brought the printed out results into the jury room
saunder v United Kingdom
area: racial bias
point: jury should be discharged if risk of racial bias - breach of article 6
facts: one juror had written a note to the judge raising concern that the other jurors had been openly making racist remarks and jokes
r v Twomey and others
area: jury tampering
point: sec 44 of cja 2003 allows for a trial by judge alone, in cases of jury ‘nobbling’
facts: defendants were charged with robbery. was a serious attempt of interfering with jury and three previous trials had collapsed
ks v r
area: jury - trial by judge alone
point: an application under sec 44 of cja 2003 for trial will be refused if there is no deliberate targeting of jurors
facts: effort to interfere with jury, but only occurred because jurors and public taking breaks in the same area
sirros v moore
area: judges - immunity from suit
point: judges are immune from prosecution for any acts they carry out
facts: immune from being sued - judge wrongly ordered someones detention - sued. no actin could be taken - acted in good faith
pinochet
area: independance from the case
point: judges must be completely impartial when making decisions
facts: must not try any case where they have any interest in the issue involved
r v ford
area: juries - challenging
point: challenge to the array - if jury chosen in random manner then it could not be challenged
facts: tries to challenge because it was not multi-racial - not successful
r v connor and rollock
area: jury - secrecy
point: court cannot inquire inquire into discussions in a jury room
facts: juror wrote to CC - H of L held court cannot interfere
saif ali v Sydney Mitchell and co
area: legal personnel - negligent advice
point: barristers can be sued for negligent written advice and opinions
facts: barrister gave wrong advice about who to sue, result claimant too late to start proceedings
hall v simons
area: legal personnel - negligence of advocacy
point: lawyers could be liable for negligence in the conduct of advocacy in court
facts: not in public interest for advocates to have immunity from being sued
Griffiths v Dawson
area: legal personnel - solicitor
point: solicitor can be sued for negligence
facts: failed to make correct application in divorce proceedings
white v jones
area: legal personnel - solicitor
point: other people affected by solicitors negligence have right to sue
facts: father wanted to make will. solicitor did nothing and daughter did not inherit
r graham stuart jones v judicial appointment commission
area: judges - judicial qualities
point: criminal convictions not considered for appointment - exception motoring offences - not too many
facts: had 7 penalty points - high court upheld decision not to appoint
miller v Secretary of State for exiting the European Union
area: judges - indépendance of the judiciary
point: judiciary must be independent from the executive
facts: 2016 following referendum government announced it would start process for leaving. challenge could executive do this
