4332443
Description
Flashcards by Maria Camara7379, updated more than 1 year ago
More
| Question | Answer |
| 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 | |
| R v Ireland and R v Burstow 1997 shows how the divisions of CoA can be persuasive | |
| Airdale NHS Trust v Bland 1993 (Original precedent) Set for allowing life support machines to be turned off for people in PVS | |
| A-G for Jersey v Holley,2005 Privy Council ruled that the defence of provocation a D was to be judged by standard of person having ordinary powers of self control. Contrary to earlier judgment by HoLs. | |
| Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd,1971 Lord Denning refused to follow the earlier decision of the HoL in Rookes v Barnard (1964) on the circumstances in which exemplary damages could be awarded. | |
| DPP v Smith,1961 An D could be guilty of murder if a reasonable person would have foreseen that death/very serious injury might result from the accused's actions. meant D could be guilty even if death wasn't intended/ serious injury. | |
| Herrington v British Railways Board,1972 First major use of PS. Involved the law on the duty of care owed to child trespasser.In Herrington Lords held that social and physical conditions had changed, so should the law. | |
| Addie v Dumbbell,1929 Decided that an occupier of land would only owe duty of care if injuries had been caused deliberately or recklessly. | |
| Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services,1972 Shows reluctance to use PS. Involved the interpretation of National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 and 4 out of 7 judges regarded earlier decision in Re Downing (1967) as wrong. | |
| Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services,1972 Despite this Lords refused to overrule earlier case of Re Downing (1967), preferring to keep to idea that certainty was most important feature of precedent. | |
| London Street Tramways v London County Council,1898 HoLs held that certainty in the law was more important than the possibility of individual hardship being caused through having to follow a past decision. | |
| Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd,1976 HoL used the PS to overrule a previous judgment that damages could only be awarded in sterling. | |
| Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd,1976 HoL used the PS to overrule a previous judgment that damages could only be awarded in sterling. | |
| R v Gotts,1992 Defendant charged with attempted murder tried to argue he could use defence of duress. Obiter statement from R v Howe was followed as persuasive precedent by CoA. | |
| R v Howe (1987) HoL ruled that duress could not be a defence to a charge of murder. In obiter dicta statement, that duress would not be available as defence for someone charged with attempted murder. | |
| R v Shivpuri (1986) First use of PS in criminal cases. Overruled decision in Anderton v Ryan (1985) on attempts to do the impossible. HoL recognised they might make errors and most important thing was to put the law right. | |
| R v Spencer (1985) Judges said there should not in general be any difference in the way that precedent was followed in the Criminal Division and in the Civil Division, 'save that we must remember that we may be dealing with the liberty of the subject and if a departure from authority is necessary in the interests of justice to an appellant, then the court should not shrink from so acting.' | |
| R v Taylor (1950) and R v Gould (1968) CoA Criminal Division can also refuse to follow past decision of its own if law has been 'misapplied or misunderstood'. Exception arises because someone's liberty is involved. Idea recognised in these two cases. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.