Criminal Law
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melling v Mathghamhna | butter smuggling case - must consider moral quality of offence as well as severity of punishment
🗑
|
||||
| McLoughlin v Tuite | failing to comply with notice to deliver document to Revenue authorities
🗑
|
||||
| Gilligan v Criminal Assets Bureau | challenged proceeds of crime act
🗑
|
||||
| Engels v Netherlands | conscript soldiers had to be afforded article 6 guarantees
🗑
|
||||
| Clingham v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea | ASBOs were civil not criminal
🗑
|
||||
| Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire | footbal banning orders were civil not criminal
🗑
|
||||
| Conroy v AG | disqualification following DUI conviction not considered part of the punishment for minor v non-minor distinction
🗑
|
||||
| King v AG | vague offences relating to vagrancy
🗑
|
||||
| Dokie v DPP | failing to provide immigration paperwork w/o satisfactory explanation
🗑
|
||||
| Douglas v DPP | offence of causing public scandal and njuring the morals of the community was void for vagueness
🗑
|
||||
| Shaw v DPP | offence of conspiring to corrupt public morals allowed as it was indictable
🗑
|
||||
| Cox v DPP | offence of openly, lewdly and obscenely exposing ones person held to be sufficiently precise
🗑
|
||||
| Corway v Independent Newspapers | constitutional offence of blasphemy too vague
🗑
|
||||
| DPP v Forsey | presumption that payment to public official are deemed to be corrupt found to be constitutional
🗑
|
||||
| Fagan | driving car over foot considered a continuing act
🗑
|
||||
| Kaitamaki | held sexual intercourse to be a continuing act only ending with withdrawal
🗑
|
||||
| Thabo Meli | victim actually killed by exposure following being put over cliff
🗑
|
||||
| R v Miller | fell asleep while smoking cigarette
🗑
|
||||
| R v Larsonneur | French woman brought to the UK by British police charged with being an illegal alien in the UK
🗑
|
||||
| Winzar v CC of Kent | convicted of being found drunk on the highway following forced removal from hospital
🗑
|
||||
| Kilbride v Lake | warrant of fitness disappearing from car held not to be within conduct, control or knowledge
🗑
|
||||
| CC v Ireland | lack of defence of mistake as to age for statutory rape found unconstitutional
🗑
|
||||
| R v Paine | no obligation to protect a stranger (drinking poison)
🗑
|
||||
| Sweeney v Ireland | withholding information under section 9 Offences Against State (Amendment) Act found unconstitutional
🗑
|
||||
| R v Gibbons and Proctor | defendant and common law wife failed to feed man's child who subsequently died of starvation
🗑
|
||||
| R v Hood | convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence after failing to summon ambulance in time for wife who fell and broke a number of bones
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v O'Brien | state claimed husband had a duty to protect his wife from attack
🗑
|
||||
| R v Instan | did not feed sick aunt, or seek medical attention or tell anyone
🗑
|
||||
| R v Stone and Dobinson | Man and mistress convicted of manslaughter following sister's death
🗑
|
||||
| R v Taktak | assumed responsibility for prostitute by isolating her from others' assistance
🗑
|
||||
| DPP v Santa-Bermudez | failure to warn of needle amounted to assault and battery
🗑
|
||||
| R v Dytham | policeman who stood by while a member of the public was violently assaulted was guilty of wilful misconduct in public office
🗑
|
||||
| R v Pittwood | railway gatekeeper who failed to shut gate convicted of manslaughter based on contractual duty
🗑
|
||||
| Airedale NHS Trust v Bland | declaration it was lawful to stop feeding patient in a persistent vegetative state
🗑
|
||||
| In Re a Ward of Court | true cause of death would not be withrawal of life support, but original injuries sustained
🗑
|
||||
| R v White | medical evidence showed woman's death was not due to poisoning
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v Davis | sufficient for injuries caused to be related to death in a more than minimal way
🗑
|
||||
| R v Pagett | defendant kidnapped woman and used her as a human shield, resulting in death
🗑
|
||||
| R v Jordan | death not caused by original wound but injection of medicine to which the victim was allergic
🗑
|
||||
| R v Smith | soldier dropped from stretcher did not break chain of causation
🗑
|
||||
| R v Cheshire | would only be acquitted if medical staff had been reckless rather than merely incompetent and negligent
🗑
|
||||
| People (AG) v McGrath | movement of man attacked formed a normal link in the chain between the blow struck and death
🗑
|
||||
| R v Malcherek and Steel | bizarre to suggest that discontinuing medical treatment be said to have caused death of patient rather than initial injury
🗑
|
||||
| R v Blaue | woman died after refusing blood transfusion as she was a Jehovah's witness
🗑
|
||||
| R v Roberts | woman injured following jump from car after being sexually assaulted
🗑
|
||||
| R v Hart | natural intervention causing death after girl left unconscious on beach was reasonably foreseeable
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v Murray | charge of capital murder following bank robbery
🗑
|
||||
| Hyam v DPP | convicted of murder as she knew it was probable setting fire to house would result in GBH
🗑
|
||||
| R v Moloney | drunkenly dared to pull trigger of gun - outcome must have been foreseen as a virtual certainty
🗑
|
||||
| R v Hancock and Shankland | taxi driver killed by falling concrete block - probability should be considered
🗑
|
||||
| R v Nedrick | man poured paraffin through letterbox and set it alight, resulting in death
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v Douglas and Hayes | must have had intention to kill; reckless disregard of risk not enough - shooting with attempt to murder
🗑
|
||||
| Clifford v DPP | appeal against conviction of being rowdy with intention to provoke a breach of peace
🗑
|
||||
| DPP v Smith | applied objective standard to policeman thrown off car and killed - once a reasonable person would have realised their natural and probable consequence was to cause serious injury
🗑
|
||||
| R v Steane | not enough to show that defendant charged w/broadcasting with intention to assist the enemy knew that his broadcasts were likely to do so
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v Hull | shotgun discharged at door killed man - must consider natural and probable consequences, and whether presumption had not been rebutted
🗑
|
||||
| Cunningham | gas meter torn from wall - must have actually foreseen consequences
🗑
|
||||
| Caldwell | set fire in hotel while drunk - risk would have been obvious to particular accused had they thought of it
🗑
|
||||
| Lawrence | reckless driving causing death - sufficient that a reasonable man would have seen the risk
🗑
|
||||
| Elliot v C (A Minor) | intellectually challenged girl convicted of arson
🗑
|
||||
| R v G and R | two young boys charged w/arson - overruled previous caselaw
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v McGrath | reckless endangerment - subjective test for recklessness in Ireland
🗑
|
||||
| Sweet v Parsley | cannabis - wherever a statute is silent as to mens rea, there is a presumption that it exists
🗑
|
||||
| Gammon v AG for Hong Kong | builder who had deviated from plans in construction of building - strict liability
🗑
|
||||
| Reilly v Patwell | offence of failing to keep land free of litter one of strict liability
🗑
|
||||
| R v Eagleton | baker charged w attempting to obtain money fraudulently - no further steps required
🗑
|
||||
| The People v Thornton | inquiries about poisons that would bring on miscarriage - must go beyond mere preparation
🗑
|
||||
| AG v Sullivan | midwife had prepared false forms - endorsed proximity approach
🗑
|
||||
| R v Campbell | attempted bank robbery
🗑
|
||||
| R v Geddes | attempted false imprisonment
🗑
|
||||
| Mason v DPP | attempting to drive a vehicle while under the influence
🗑
|
||||
| R v Pearman | attempted GBH - oblique intention will suffice in England
🗑
|
||||
| Haughton v Smith | attempted handling of stolen goods legally impossible as police had taken ownership
🗑
|
||||
| R v Shivuri | attempts related to drugs even though packages did not actually contain such
🗑
|
||||
| Capaldi | incitement to carry out illegal abortion
🗑
|
||||
| R v Most | general publication calling for regicide
🗑
|
||||
| R v Jones | graffiti soliciting underage girls for sex
🗑
|
||||
| DPP v Armstrong | rang undercover officer asking for child pornography
🗑
|
||||
| R v Jones | intention inferred re: selling cannabis
🗑
|
||||
| R v Parnell | conspiring with others to encourage tenants not to pay their rent
🗑
|
||||
| R v Saik | conditional conspiracy of money laundering still valid
🗑
|
||||
| R v Porter | convicted despite incomplete knowledge of contents of package
🗑
|
||||
| R v Bolton | cross-dressers and suspected homosexuals charged with conspiring and inciting people to commit an unnatural offence
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v Egan | made workshop available to store stolen jewelery
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v O'Reilly | Irish case - drove getaway care, did not need to be present
🗑
|
||||
| AG's Ref (1 of 1975) | procured drink driving by spiking drink
🗑
|
||||
| R v Calhaem | hitman claimed he never intended to carry out murder and panicked - must simply be acting within scope of counselling
🗑
|
||||
| People (AG) v Ryan | group attacked rival group and one was stabbed - standing around could amount to knowingly giving aid or encouragement
🗑
|
||||
| DPP v Jordan and Deagan | encouraging cruel treatment of dogs
🗑
|
||||
| R v Stringer | chased victim who was subsequently killed
🗑
|
||||
| R v Clarkson | had not intended presence during rape to give encouragement
🗑
|
||||
| R v Bainbridge | must have knowledge of type of offence
🗑
|
||||
| DPP v Maxwell | enough that he knew it was one of a range of possible offences
🗑
|
||||
| The People (DPP) v Madden | victim machine-gunned to death - approved Bainbridge
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v Pringle | capital murder inferred to be within scope of common design
🗑
|
||||
| People (DPP) v Doohan | intention to cause serious injury sufficient in common design - 'bit of a battering'
🗑
|
||||
| DPP v Rose | 'mind the blood' too ambiguous to allow conviction of common design
🗑
|
||||
| Becerra | saying 'come on let's go' and jumping out window not sufficient withdrawal
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
maevb
Popular Law sets