Precedents Flashcards
Bushells Case 1670
Established Independence of Jury
Arose from R v William Penn
R v Twomey 2009
Case heard by judge after jury was dismissed for knobbling
Singh v London Underground
Jury refused as case too complicated
Ward v James 1966
Juries allowed in Personal Injury cases in exceptional circumstances
R v Abdroikof
House of Lords held police officers could serve on juries
R v Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Brownslow
Court of Appeal held Police checks are legal if both sides are informed
ABC Trial
First use of Wider background check.
Soldiers accused of breaking the Official Secrets Act
R v Ford
Jury cannot be challenged if its all white
Challenged the array
R v Ponting
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
R v Kronlid
Protesters caused £2million in Criminal damage but didn’t flee or hide.
Jury Aquitted
Protesters said it was a last resort
R v Owen
Jury acquitted
father who assaulted sons killer
R v Mirza & Connor 2004
A Juror Cannot discus a case even if the decision was unsafe or biased
Jury Secrecy
R V Eccles Justices ex parte Farelly 1992
Justices clerk participated in decision making and this led to the convictions being quashed.
R v Birmingham Magistrates Justices ex parte Ahmed 1995
Justices Clerk retired to render a verdict with Magistrates
Convictions Quashed on appeal
R v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy
Justices Clerk was a member of the firm representing the defendant
R v Bingham Justices ex parte Jowitt 1974
1 of the Magistrates said he always believed Police officers even when there was evidence to the contary
Convictions were quashed
Prosecution Bias
Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell 1980
Barristers can be sued for negligence in litigation cases
Griffiths v Dawson 1993
Solicitors can be liable for negligence to persons who are not their clients but are affected by there work
Sirros v Moore 1971
Judges cannot be prosecuted for any decisions they make in a case
Even if they made a mistake
Immunity from suit
Pinochet Case 1998
-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
GCHQ Case 1984
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.
Bromley LBC v Greater London Council 1983
House of Lords held that the Greater London Council could not order the Boroughs to raise more funds
AG v Guardian Newspapers (SpyCatcher) 1998
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.
Serdar Mohammed v MOD 2017
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
A & Others v Home Office 2004
House of Lords held prisoners being detained without trial in Belmarsh was incompatible with A.5 ECHR
M v Home Office 1994
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
London & Northeast Railway v Berriman 1946
Literal Rule
Legislation said compensation would only be paid if he was repairing but he was maintaining and his widow received nothing
R v Bentham 2005
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
Whiteley v Chapel 1868
Literal Rule
Offence to impersonate anyone ENTILTED to vote.
D impersonated dead person
Dead person not entitled to vote
Not guilty
R V Porter 2006
Literal Rule
D charged with POSSESION of child pornography but had deleted it and thus was no longer in possession.
Not guilty
Becke v Smith 1836
Established Golden Rule
Judge can change words to avoid an absurd result
R v Allen 1872
Narrow Golden Rule
Court determined ‘marry’ to mean the ceremony of marriage as one cannot be legally married if there already married
Re Sigworth 1935
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
Hendon’s Case 1584
Established the Mischief Rule
- Judges should interpret the act in a way that the remedy parliament intended is achieved
RCN v DHSC 1982
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
Smith v Hughes 1960
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
DPP v Bull 1994
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
Corkery v Carpenter 1951
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
Pepper v Hart 1993
Purposive
Allowed Hansard to be used as an extrinsic aid in Judges Decisions
R v Registrar-General ex parte Smith 1990
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
Fitzpatrick v Stirling Housing Association
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
London Street Tramways v London County Council 1898
Established the House of Lords Stare Decisis Rule meaning it was bound by its own decisions unless they were made per incuriam
Practice Statement 1966
Allowed House of Lords to overturn previous decisions
Lord Gardiner 1966
R v Shivpuri 1986
First use of the practice statement
Hall v Simons 2000
Allowed advocates to be sued for negligence
Used Practice Statement to overturn Ronel v Worsley 1967
Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co 1946
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
R v Taylor 1950
Allows Court of Appeal to overturn previous decesion in a Criminal Case if it will cause injustice
R v Howe 1987
Duress is not a defence to Murder (Ratio Decidendi)
Duress is not a defence to Attempted Murder - Obiter Dicta
R v Brown 1993
Consent not a defnce to ABH or GBH under Offences Against the Persons Act 1861
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
Manafacturer had a duty of care to final consumer
Basis for all of Tort Law
R v Gotts 1992
Following obiter Dicta of R v Howe 1987 the House of Lords held Gotts was guilty of attempted murder despite his plea of duress
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA 1985
Original Precedent
Court of Appeal REVERSED High Court and House of Lords REVERSED Court of Appeal
Merritt v Merritt 1971
Balfour v Balfour 1919
Merritt distinguished from Balfour as couple weren’t ‘living in amenity’ so contract was enforceable
Miliangos v George Frank 1976
House of Lords Case INFLUENCED BY LOWER COURT (Court of Appeal) in Schorsch Meier GmbH v Hennin 1975
Lister v Helsey Hall 2001
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
AG for Jersey v Holley 2005
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled that their decision had force over Jersey and the United Kingdom
Candler v Crane Christmans 1951
Lord Denning issued dissenting judgment which was later confirmed by House of Lords in Hedly Byrne v Heller and Partners 1963
