4331647
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Maria Camara7379, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Maria Camara7379
vor mehr als 8 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| R v R, 1991 ( Persuasive - Lower court decision) Creation of Marital Rape as an offence - a man can be prosecuted for raping his wife. HoLs overruled HoL persuaded by CoA. | |
| Herrington v BRB, 1972 (Overruling) Child trespasser injured in railway line, occupier held liable after HoLs overruled its previous decision. | |
| Jersey v Holley, 2005 (Privy Council decision) D hacked deceased to death with an axe. Privy Council ruled that in defence a D should be judged by the standard of person having ordinary powers of self control. | |
| Wagon Mound, No.1, 1961 (Persuasive- Privy Council decision) A vessel leaked oil, cotton debris set on fire. Destruction of boats and wharf. Privy Council | |
| R v Howe,1987/R v Gotts,1992 (Obiter Dicta) (Howe) Duress cannot be used as a defence for murder (Gotts) Duress cannot be used as a defence for attempted murder. Persuaded by obiter dicta. | |
| London Street Tramways v London County Council (Practice Statement) House of Lords held that certainty was more important than individual hardship. | |
| Donoghue v Stevenson,1932 (Binding precedent) A manufacturer of a product is liable to the end consumer of that product. | |
| Conway v Rimmer,1968 (Practice Statement) First ever use of the practice statement was on a technical point of law. | |
| Merit v Merit,1971 (Distinguishing) distinguished material facts in Balfour v Balfour and set a new precedent. | |
| Balfour v Balfour,1919 (Distinguishing) Merit v Merit later distinguished the facts of the case to set a new precedent. | |
| Practice Statement,1966 Allows Supreme court to overrule previous decisions and not follow precedent. | |
| Young v Bristol Aeroplane,1944 (Practice Statement) set out the exceptions for when the CoA can overrule its previous decisions and not follow precedent. | |
| Herrington v British Railway,1972 (Overruling) HoLs used the practice statement to overrule Addie v Dumbreck, duty of care owed to a child trespasser. As social and physical conditions had changed. | |
| Davis v Johnson,1979 (Overruling) Was overruled by Pepper v Hart using Practice statement on use of Hansard for statutory interpretation | |
| R v Howe,1987 (Obiter Dicta) obiter statement made about how judge would not have allowed duress as a defence for attempted murder as well as murder. | |
| R v Gotts,1992 (Obiter Dicta) Followed Obiter statement in R v Howe and duress was refused as a defence for attempted murder. | |
| Pepper v Hart 1993 (Overruling/Practice Statement) Overruled Davis v Johnson using practice statement to allow for Hansard to be used for statutory interpretation. | |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf,1995 (Original Precedent) blocked TV signal. | |
| Sweet v Parsley,1970 Must have presumption of mens rea to be guilty of crime | |
| Knuller v DPP,1973 Showed supreme courts reluctance to use practice statement. | |
| Anderton v Ryan 1985 was overruled by Shivpuri using practice statement | |
| Shivpuri 1986 overruled Anderton v Ryan using practice statement. FIRST MAJOR USE OF PRACTICE STATEMENT IN CRIMINAL LAW 20 yrs. after p.s introduced |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.