Cases for law exam 0.0 / 5 ? CriminologyCriminal JusticeUniversityAll boards Created by: bethkxoCreated on: 09-01-20 11:00 Human in being R v Poulton 1 of 23 Substantial means more than some trivial degree of impairment but less than total impairment Golds 2 of 23 where defendants act was still operating and substantial cause of death, chain would not be broken R v Smith 3 of 23 Only palpably wrong treatment would break the chain of causation R v Jordan 4 of 23 The but for test R v White 5 of 23 Thin Skull rule- take victim as you find him R v Blaue 6 of 23 oblique intent- two part test R v Woolin 7 of 23 Sexual infidelity can be taken into account if there are other qualifying triggers that constitute grave character R v Clinton 8 of 23 Immediacy (assault) R v Constanza 9 of 23 Assault by words or silence R v Ireland 10 of 23 Indirect application (battery) is enough for a conviction R v Martin 11 of 23 Intention (ABH) can be guilty of 2.47 even if mens rea is battery R v Savage 12 of 23 ABH includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim R v MIller 13 of 23 ABH needs not to be serious or permanent but must be more than trifling or transient R v Donovon 14 of 23 s.20 a wound exists where the is a break in the continuity of the skin Moriarty v Brookes 15 of 23 s.20 GBH: 'really serious harm' DPP v Smith 16 of 23 s.20 GBH can includes psychiatric injury R v Burstow 17 of 23 s. 20 inflict can mean direct or indirect application of force R v Wilson 18 of 23 s. 20 recklessness: accused has foreseen the harm that might be done and still goes on to take the risk R v Cunningham 19 of 23 s.20 some harm R v Mowatt 20 of 23 Consent: injury for sexual offences can be consented to under s.47 and s.20 R v Brown 21 of 23 Consent: Branding more similar to tattooing, consent was given R v Wilson 22 of 23 Consent: properly conducted sports: implicit consent to a risk of injury or GBH, depends on circumstances R v Barnes 23 of 23
Comments
No comments have yet been made