Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Precedents > Flashcards

Precedents Flashcards

1
Q

Bushells Case 1670

A

Established Independence of Jury
Arose from R v William Penn

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

R v Twomey 2009

A

Case heard by judge after jury was dismissed for knobbling

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

Singh v London Underground

A

Jury refused as case too complicated

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

Ward v James 1966

A

Juries allowed in Personal Injury cases in exceptional circumstances

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

R v Abdroikof

A

House of Lords held police officers could serve on juries

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

R v Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Brownslow

A

Court of Appeal held Police checks are legal if both sides are informed

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

ABC Trial

A

First use of Wider background check.
Soldiers accused of breaking the Official Secrets Act

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

R v Ford

A

Jury cannot be challenged if its all white
Challenged the array

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

R v Ponting

A

Ponting gave classified documents about the Fawklands sinkingg of the General Belgrano to Labour MP
Charged Under Official Secrets Act 1911
Not Guilty
Layman’s Equity

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

R v Kronlid

A

Protesters caused £2million in Criminal damage but didn’t flee or hide.
Jury Aquitted
Protesters said it was a last resort

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

R v Owen

A

Jury acquitted
father who assaulted sons killer

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

R v Mirza & Connor 2004

A

A Juror Cannot discus a case even if the decision was unsafe or biased
Jury Secrecy

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

R V Eccles Justices ex parte Farelly 1992

A

Justices clerk participated in decision making and this led to the convictions being quashed.

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

R v Birmingham Magistrates Justices ex parte Ahmed 1995

A

Justices Clerk retired to render a verdict with Magistrates
Convictions Quashed on appeal

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

R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy

A

Justices Clerk was a member of the firm representing the defendant

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

R v Bingham Justices ex parte Jowitt 1974

A

1 of the Magistrates said he always believed Police officers even when there was evidence to the contary
Convictions were quashed
Prosecution Bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell 1980

A

Barristers can be sued for negligence in litigation cases

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

Griffiths v Dawson 1993

A

Solicitors can be liable for negligence to persons who are not their clients but are affected by there work

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Sirros v Moore 1971

A

Judges cannot be prosecuted for any decisions they make in a case
Even if they made a mistake
Immunity from suit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Pinochet Case 1998

A

-Chilean Dictator Pinochet was arrested in London to be extradited to Spain for war crimes.
- He Appealed to the House of Lords claiming Sovereign Immunity
-HoL ruled it did not apply to War Crimes
-Lord Hoffman failed to disclose links to Amnesty International. The House of Lords set aside their judgment and convened a new panel, the same outcome arose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

GCHQ Case 1984

A

Government banned Trade Union membership at GCHQ citing national security through an Order-In-Council
HoL ruled that Royal Perogative was subject to Judicial Review but the decision was justified.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Bromley LBC v Greater London Council 1983

A

House of Lords held that the Greater London Council could not order the Boroughs to raise more funds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

AG v Guardian Newspapers (SpyCatcher) 1998

A

Ex MI5 Assistant Director published a book containing secrets. It was released abroad but British Government sued to stop its released in the UK.
HoL ruled it was a breach of privacy but as it was already release abroad the damage to national security had already happened.

24
Q

Serdar Mohammed v MOD 2017

A

Supreme Court held UK had authority to detain individuals perusing to UNSC resolutions.
But UK had to afford them procedural protections eg challenge their detention

25
Q

A & Others v Home Office 2004

A

House of Lords held prisoners being detained without trial in Belmarsh was incompatible with A.5 ECHR

26
Q

M v Home Office 1994

A

Crown Officials can be held personally liable for their actions
Injunctions can be granted against them in their official capacity
Can also be held in contempt of court

27
Q

London & Northeast Railway v Berriman 1946

A

Literal Rule
Legislation said compensation would only be paid if he was repairing but he was maintaining and his widow received nothing

28
Q

R v Bentham 2005

A

Literal Rule
Charged under Firearms Act for POSSESSION of imitation firearm.
He used his fingers under a jacket to imitate a firearm.
HoL said you cannot possess your own fingers

29
Q

Whiteley v Chapel 1868

A

Literal Rule
Offence to impersonate anyone ENTILTED to vote.
D impersonated dead person
Dead person not entitled to vote
Not guilty

30
Q

R V Porter 2006

A

Literal Rule
D charged with POSSESION of child pornography but had deleted it and thus was no longer in possession.
Not guilty

31
Q

Becke v Smith 1836

A

Established Golden Rule
Judge can change words to avoid an absurd result

32
Q

R v Allen 1872

A

Narrow Golden Rule
Court determined ‘marry’ to mean the ceremony of marriage as one cannot be legally married if there already married

33
Q

Re Sigworth 1935

A

Wide Golden Rule
Murdered his mother and under the Adminstrario of Estates Act he was entitled to her estate
Judge said it would be repugnant and ruled he could not inherit

34
Q

Hendon’s Case 1584

A

Established the Mischief Rule
- Judges should interpret the act in a way that the remedy parliament intended is achieved

35
Q

RCN v DHSC 1982

A

Mischief Rule
RCN challenged the DHSC over legality of nurses carrying out abortions
The Micheif parliament was trying to stop was back-street dangerous abortions
So allowed nurses to perform them

36
Q

Smith v Hughes 1960

A

Mischief Rule
Prostitutes charged under Street Offences Act 1959 which prohibited solicitation on public streets.
To circumvent this the prositutues solicited from a private balcony
Lord Parker said mischief was bothering pedestrians
Found Guilty

37
Q

DPP v Bull 1994

A

Mischief Rule or Literal Rule
Male prostitute charged under Street Offences Act 1959.
Found Not guilty
Act was written to only apply to female prostitutes

38
Q

Corkery v Carpenter 1951

A

Mischief Rule
Under Licensing Act was an offence to be drunk operating a carriage.
D was drunk in charge of a Bicycle and was Found guilty.
Mischief was people drunk inchagre of a item on the road

39
Q

Pepper v Hart 1993

A

Purposive
Allowed Hansard to be used as an extrinsic aid in Judges Decisions

40
Q

R v Registrar-General ex parte Smith 1990

A

Purposive
Under Adoption Act, Smith was entitled to birth certificate.
Smith was denied as he was a murderer with mental issues and it was thought he wanted to track down and harm his mother.
Court determined it not parliaments intention for it to be used to harm people

41
Q

Fitzpatrick v Stirling Housing Association

A

Purposive
Under Rent Act, on the death of a tenant, the spouse or family member entitled to the tenancy.
The House of Lords using the Purposive Approach said a long standing Homosexual relationship could be considered under the category of family

42
Q

London Street Tramways v London County Council 1898

A

Established the House of Lords Stare Decisis Rule meaning it was bound by its own decisions unless they were made per incuriam

43
Q

Practice Statement 1966

A

Allowed House of Lords to overturn previous decisions
Lord Gardiner 1966

44
Q

R v Shivpuri 1986

A

First use of the practice statement

45
Q

Hall v Simons 2000

A

Allowed advocates to be sued for negligence
Used Practice Statement to overturn Ronel v Worsley 1967

46
Q

Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co 1946

A

Provided conditions Court of Appeal can overturn its previous decisions
1. If it contradicts a Supreme Court decision
2. 2 conflicting CoA decisions
3. Per Incuriam

47
Q

R v Taylor 1950

A

Allows Court of Appeal to overturn previous decesion in a Criminal Case if it will cause injustice

48
Q

R v Howe 1987

A

Duress is not a defence to Murder (Ratio Decidendi)
Duress is not a defence to Attempted Murder - Obiter Dicta

49
Q

R v Brown 1993

A

Consent not a defnce to ABH or GBH under Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

50
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

A

Manafacturer had a duty of care to final consumer
Basis for all of Tort Law

51
Q

R v Gotts 1992

A

Following obiter Dicta of R v Howe 1987 the House of Lords held Gotts was guilty of attempted murder despite his plea of duress

52
Q

Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA 1985

A

Original Precedent
Court of Appeal REVERSED High Court and House of Lords REVERSED Court of Appeal

53
Q

Merritt v Merritt 1971
Balfour v Balfour 1919

A

Merritt distinguished from Balfour as couple weren’t ‘living in amenity’ so contract was enforceable

54
Q

Miliangos v George Frank 1976

A

House of Lords Case INFLUENCED BY LOWER COURT (Court of Appeal) in Schorsch Meier GmbH v Hennin 1975

55
Q

Lister v Helsey Hall 2001

A

House of Lords case where Lord Styne issued the leading judgement, and stated they were influenced by Canadian Supreme Court Case Balzey v Curry 1999

56
Q

AG for Jersey v Holley 2005

A

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled that their decision had force over Jersey and the United Kingdom

57
Q

Candler v Crane Christmans 1951

A

Lord Denning issued dissenting judgment which was later confirmed by House of Lords in Hedly Byrne v Heller and Partners 1963

Law (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions