Skip to content
Get Revising
Search:
Keyword:
Go
Subject
Resource type:
Resource type (all)
Flashcards
Revision cards
Revision notes
Quizzes
Mindmaps
Crosswords
Organise your thinking
Quizsearches
Shared resources
Join
Join Get Revising
Start learning now
Already a member?
Please sign in
Email address
Password
Forgotten your password?
Remember my details
Log in
Create
GCSE
A Level & IB
University
Study planner
Past papers
For teachers
More cards in this set
Card 6
Front
R v Hancock and Shankland: Moloney guidelines failed to mention this
Back
Card 7
Front
Nedrick guidelines: Did the defendant foresee this as a *blank*?
Back
Card 8
Front
A term wrongfully used in the case of R v Woollin (1998)
Back
Card 9
Front
R v Matthews (2003)- How the Court of Appeal described the finding of intention here
Back
Card 10
Front
An level of mens rea lower than intention
Back
Card 11
Front
R v Cunningham held that the test for recklessness is always
Back
Card 12
Front
R v Caldwell held that D was reckless to whether he damaged property if he created a risk of damage that would have been obvious to the *blank* man
Back
Card 13
Front
R v Caldwell had created a *blank* test
Back
Card 14
Front
Elliot v C initial verdict: D was not capable of *blank* the rick of damage
Back
Card 15
Front
A common law concept found in tort law
Back
View more cards
