Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
148 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
R v Dytham
|
policeman's duty to protect victim assaulted outside nightclub
|
|
|
DPP v Bartely
|
Irish Gardaí have a duty to investigate claims, a failure to do so makes them liable
|
|
|
R v Evans (Gemma)
|
duty of care for mother to daughter, duty of care assumed by sister for creating a dangerous situation
|
|
|
R v Chattoway
|
daughter was completely dependent on parents - duty of care
|
|
|
R v Shepherd
|
daughter died in labour but completely independent so no duty of care
|
|
|
R v Bonnyman
|
husband was a doctor and concealed wife's drug addiction - duty of care
|
|
|
R v Hood
|
wife was a drinker, diabetic, smoker etc. but husband convicted of gross negligence manslaughter for failing to get her medical treatment
|
|
|
R v Smith
|
wife refused to go to hospital after miscarriage - husband had a duty of care
|
|
|
R v Smith
|
no duty of care for siblings
|
|
|
R v Instan
|
moved into sickly Aunt's house and did not help her - convicted of manslaughter
|
|
|
R v Stone&Dobinson
|
duty of care assumed by couple and were liable for manslaughter
|
|
|
DPP v Joel
|
recent Irish case on gross negligence manslaughter
|
|
|
DPP v Dunleavy
|
Test for gross negligence manslaughter in Ireland
|
|
|
DPP v Cullagh
|
"chairoplane"
|
|
|
R v Adomako
|
anaesthetist failed to notice tube was removed
|
|
|
R v Wacker
|
lorry driver owed illegal immigrants a duty of care
|
|
|
R v White
|
put cyanide in mother's lemonade
|
|
|
R v Dalloway
|
only liable if child could have been saved by using the reins
|
|
|
R v Adams
|
doctor charged with "easing the passing" of patients
|
|
|
DPP v Davis
|
defendant caused death in a more than minimal way
|
|
|
DPP v Daly
|
defendants actions need not be the sole/immediate cause of death
|
|
|
AG v Gallagher
|
reckless driving - involuntary manslaughter, subjective test
|
|
|
R v Robert
|
jumped from car - objective test for causation
|
|
|
R v Williams
|
hitchhiker jumped from car - must not be "daft"
|
|
|
R v Blaue
|
refused blood transfer - still liable
|
|
|
People v Lewis
|
victim slit own throat, would die anyway and bullet wound still an operating cause
|
|
|
R v Dear
|
opened stitches - defendant's actions still an operating and significant cause
|
|
|
R v D
|
psychological harm leading to suicide means manslaughter
|
|
|
R v Pagett
|
police shot pregnant girlfriend being used as a shield
|
|
|
AG v McGrath
|
passerby attempted to give medical treatment - was not a novus actus interveniens
|
|
|
R v Kennedy (No.2)
|
never liable for drug overdose which is self-administered
|
|
|
R v Jordan
|
defendant died of pneumonia as a reaction to antibiotics medical treatment "palpably wrong," acquitted
|
|
|
R v Smith
|
fell off stretcher at army base - did not break chain of causation
|
|
|
R v Cheshire
|
medical complication during tracheotomy but original wounds still an operating cause
|
|
|
R v Latimer
|
fell on razor - transferred malice
|
|
|
R v Mitchell
|
fell on woman in post office- transferred malice
|
|
|
AG's Reference (No.3 of 1994)
|
could be convicted of manslaughter for death of unborn child subsequently born
|
|
|
Hyam v DPP
|
petrol in letter box - intent = foresight that consequence were highly probable
|
|
|
R v Moloney
|
soldier shot stepfather - intent = result a natural consequence and foreseen
|
|
|
R v Hancock&Shankland
|
threw rock on strikebreakers - intent = greater the possibility of the consequence the more likely it was foreseen and if foreseen more likely to have been intended
|
|
|
R v Nedrick
|
petrol through letter box - intent = was death a virtual certain consequence and foreseen
|
|
|
R v Woolin
|
baby died by smothering - intent = virtually certain barring an unforeseen intervention and defendant realised that
|
|
|
DPP v Murray
|
to intend to murder is to have a fixed purpose to reach a desired objective
|
|
|
DPP v Douglas&Hayes
|
oblique intention - court can infer intention
|
|
|
DPP v Clifford
|
Irish discussion of intent - the closer an action comes to achieving an outcome, the more likely it was intended
|
|
|
DPP v Hull
|
shot boyfriend through door
|
|
|
DPP v MacEoin
|
provocation - have regard to temperament, character and circumstances
|
|
|
DPP v Curran
|
formulation of provocation under MacEoin test could be dangerously loose
|
|
|
DPP v Davis
|
act must be "sudden and before there was time for the passion to cool"
|
|
|
R v Bedder
|
difficulty with "reasonable man" test - prostitute
|
|
|
R v Cocker
|
suffocated terminally ill wife - no provocation
|
|
|
DPP v Doyle
|
thing does not have to be done/said by victim in provocation - mistake as to who sleeping man was
|
|
|
DPP v Delaney
|
killed financially dependent mother - no provoking moment
|
|
|
R v Doughty
|
babies cries could be provocation
|
|
|
R v Ahluwalia
|
set abusive husband on fire
|
|
|
DPP v Kelly
|
MacEoin test of proportionality questioned
|
|
|
DPP v O'Donohoe
|
cumulative provocation - years of abuse
|
|
|
DPP v Bell
|
history of sexual abuse an accepted factor
|
|
|
R v Edwards
|
provocation - debt but excessive
|
|
|
R v Johnson
|
victim attacked defendant in response to violent threats - defendant could still avail of provocation
|
|
|
R v Clinton
|
English "loss of control" after affair
|
|
|
DPP v K (a minor)
|
acid attack - indirect force an assault
|
|
|
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
|
would not drive off foot - mens rea can develop
|
|
|
R v Lamb
|
victim must apprehend force - did not think bullet would fire
|
|
|
R v Constanza
|
delivered letters by hand - satisfied immediacy elements of force
|
|
|
R v Ireland
|
words can be an assault
|
|
|
DPP v Kirwin
|
literal interpretation to be given to "serious harm"
|
|
|
Collins v Wilcock
|
consent can be revoked - attempted to arrest possible prostitute
|
|
|
DPP v Dolny
|
consent not a defence do S.3 assault
|
|
|
AG's Reference (No.6 of 1980)
|
fist fight not in public interest
|
|
|
R v Brown&Others
|
consent not a defence as satisfying a libido is not in public interest
|
|
|
R v Wilson
|
husband branded wife
|
|
|
R v Emmett
|
erotic asphyxiation/set breasts on fire - consent not a defence
|
|
|
R v Meachen
|
3 fingers needed colostomy - consent not a defence
|
|
|
R v Dica
|
consent to sexual intercourse not a consent to an STD
|
|
|
R v Konzani
|
consent to sexual intercourse distinguished from consent to STD - must be voluntary and informed, honest belief may be a defence
|
|
|
R v Adaye
|
not clear if defendant had knowledge of STD
|
|
|
Bolduc&Bird v R
|
doctor gave vaginal exam - no fraud
|
|
|
R v Tabussum
|
fraudulent breast exams - no consent, false nature
|
|
|
St George's Healthcare NHS Trust v S
|
refused C-section but was forced to have one - assault
|
|
|
F v West Berkshire Health Authority
|
sterilised - not an assault as in patient's best interest
|
|
|
R v Gillard
|
men sprayed gas in bouncer's face - poison
|
|
|
Royal Dublin Society v Yates
|
pre-1997 Act harassment - required victim to comply with threats
|
|
|
DPP v Ramachchandran
|
mens rea for harrassment requires reasonable man
|
|
|
R v Colchan
|
paranoid schizophrenic sent letters to MP - objective standard applied
|
|
|
Lou v DPP
|
slapped victim, threatened her boyfriend 4 months later - not a "course of conduct" for harassment
|
|
|
Wass v DPP
|
following former girlfriend on foot and in car - course of conduct, 2 separate incidents
|
|
|
DPP v Lynch
|
installing kitchen - masturbated & exposed self - "persistent" in continuous or severable
|
|
|
Foy v Registrar for Births, Deaths and Marriages
|
High Court refused to change birth cert but ECHR did
|
|
|
DPP v C
|
consent defined - house party, accused knew she consented only because she thought her boyfriend
|
|
|
R v Dee
|
"you are home soon tonight" no true consent as to identity
|
|
|
R v Elbekkay
|
assumed she was consenting to boyfriend, was actually his friend - no consent
|
|
|
Papadimitropoulos v R
|
thought she was married, still consent (nature/identity not changed)
|
|
|
R v Williams
|
said sex would improve singing - fraud
|
|
|
R v Flattery
|
said sex was an operation - fraud
|
|
|
R v Linekar
|
refused to pay prostitute for sex - not fraud as to the act
|
|
|
DPP v Keogh
|
prostitute - mens rea for rape can develop, continuing act
|
|
|
R v Clarence
|
husband had gonorrhoea - still consent
|
|
|
R v Camplin
|
woman drunk - incapable of giving real consent
|
|
|
R v Lang
|
encouraging a woman to drink in order to get her to consent to sex not rape if she is still capable of consenting
|
|
|
R v Bree
|
consent may evaporate long before unconscious
|
|
|
R v Olugboja
|
differentiated consent and submission
|
|
|
R v Doyle
|
resisted up to penetration, then "let him get on with it" - rape
|
|
|
R v Daniels
|
guided rapist's penis because she was so scared - still rape
|
|
|
R v Devonald
|
English 2003 act - consent vitiated by fraud as to purpose
|
|
|
DPP v McDonagh
|
gang rape - did she offer sex for money?
|
|
|
DPP v Morgan
|
raped man's wife - belief need not be reasonable
|
|
|
Kaitamki v R
|
mens rea developed - only realised during second act
|
|
|
R v Chase
|
"breasts" v "beard" - difficulties of gender-neutral offence
|
|
|
Fairclough v Whipp
|
invited child to touch - no hostility, not a sexual assault
|
|
|
R v Rolfe
|
exposed self on train - sexual assault does not require contact, but does require apprehension
|
|
|
R v Sargent
|
threatened boy with stick to make him masturbate - hostility element satified
|
|
|
DPP v Rogers
|
made daughter masturbate him - did not force her/was not hostile so no indecent assault
|
|
|
R v Court
|
smacked girls buttocks - indecency requirements
|
|
|
MD (a minor) v Ireland
|
challenge to S.5 of the 2006 Act
|
|
|
R v Pommell
|
necessary possession of gun
|
|
|
Southwark v William
|
homelessness not an immediate danger - does not satisfy "necessary" to break in
|
|
|
DPP v Kelly
|
judge must prevent anarchy
|
|
|
Lord Advocate's Reference No1
|
in cases of necessity, legal alternatives must first be exhausted
|
|
|
DPP v Rogers
|
escaped in car - could have escaped without car, not necessary
|
|
|
R v Dudley&Stephens
|
ate cabinboy -convicted of murder
|
|
|
Re A (children) (conjoined twins:surgical separation)
|
requirements of necessity
|
|
|
Re a Ward of Court
|
right to die in Ireland
|
|
|
R v Bourne
|
abortion necessary in England
|
|
|
AG v X
|
abortion necessary in Ireland
|
|
|
AG v Whelan
|
duress in Ireland defined
|
|
|
R v Baker&Wilkins
|
must be a threat of physical harm - child in house
|
|
|
R v Martin
|
threat of suicide satisfies duress requirement
|
|
|
R v Valderrama-Vega
|
combination of pressure satisfied duress
|
|
|
R v Ortiz
|
greed may be a factor in duress
|
|
|
R v Hudson&Taylor
|
threat to witnesses in court immediate
|
|
|
Liam Keane Trial
|
"collective amnesia"
|
|
|
R v Abdul-Hassain
|
hijacked plane - threat may be imminent rather than immediate
|
|
|
R v Hegarty
|
mental condition not taken into account for duress
|
|
|
DPP v O'Toole
|
duress case, jury should put themselves in accused's situation
|
|
|
DPP v Dickey
|
duress case, jury should take accused's frailties into account
|
|
|
R v Fitzpatrick
|
voluntarily joined IRA - could not plead duress
|
|
|
R v Sharp
|
joined gang voluntarily and was aware he could be pressured
|
|
|
R v Hasan
|
threatened by man involved with prostitute he minded - not duress
|
|
|
R v LM&Others
|
accused were trafficked - able to avail of duress
|
|
|
R v Gotts
|
duress not a defence to attempted murder
|
|
|
R v Howe
|
recommended duress as a partial defence to murder
|
|
|
R v Steane
|
duress not a defence to treason normally
|
|
|
R v Shepherd
|
Sharp not appropriate where not entered voluntarily/was not aware they were viloent
|
|
|
DPP v Horgan
|
unlawful act involuntary manslaughter assault
|
|
|
AG v Crosbie&Meehan
|
brandishing knife was an unlawful, not defensive act
|
|
|
R v Holzer
|
cut lip - act too trivial for liability for manslaughter
|
|
|
DPP v Hendley
|
wife died due to accidental damage to liver - not an unlawful act
|
