Created by Yasmine King
over 7 years ago
|
||
Question | Answer |
R v Thomas (case facts) | A school care taker touched a 12 year old girls's skirt |
R v Thomas (legal principle) | Touching clothes is equivalent to touching him. The lightest touch will be sufficient |
Wilson v Pringle (case facts) | D grabbed the bag of another boy causing V to fall over |
Wilson v Pringle (legal principle) | Battery the contact must be proved to be hostile |
Fagan v MPC (case facts) | D parked on a pc's foot. Initially it was an accident. When asked to move he refused |
Fagan v MPC (legal principle) | Force can be applied via a continuing act |
DPP v K (case facts) | D poured sulphuric acid into a hand dryer, another boy then used the hand dryer and was hit in the face with acid |
DPP v K (legal principle) | Force can be applied indirectly eg via an object |
DPP v Santana- Bermudez (case facts) | D allowed a PC to search his pockets knowing he had needless in his pockets |
DPP v Santana- Bermudez (legal principle) | Force can even be applied by an omission but only where D has a duty to act and fails to perform that duty |
R v Mohan | Intention is where the defendant aims to apply unlawful force |
R v Cunningham | Recklessness is where a D realises the risk of applying unlawful force and carries on regardless |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.