OAPA special study cases

?
  • Created by: 10dhall
  • Created on: 03-06-17 14:40
What happened in Clarence 1888?
The D was convicted of s47 ABH because he infected his wife with gonorrhoea without her knowledge/consent, he appealed and the conviction was quashed
1 of 30
Where was the case heard?
In the QBD of the High Court which therefore set a binding precedent on the Crown/Magistrate's
2 of 30
Why is the timing important within this case?
The social conditions at the time - the STI was serious, but is now treated with antibiotics. Can lead to death, blindness in babies, cures were not effective as they are now
3 of 30
What reasons make this case important?
1) No evidence s47/s20 dealt with sexual crimes, only ss48-55. 2) Both sections included personal violence, this case did not have any. 3) **** was impossible in marriage. 4) Wife automatically consents with marriage
4 of 30
What points did the judges make when coming to their conclusions in this case?
1) Would case a-lot of people to be criminalised, better for Parliament to change the law not the judges. 2) Similarity in hesitance in the PS 1966. 3) If convicted, what would happen with other diseases/small box/scarlet fever. 4) **** convictions
5 of 30
What cases can this be linked with?
Wilson 1984, Golding 2014, Dica 2004, Bennett 1866 - can be distinguished from when the D assaulted 13 yr old niece giving her an STI
6 of 30
What happened in Cunningham 1957?
D ripped a gas meter of a wall and the gas from the pipes spread which poisoned the D's mother in law, was convicted of maliciously administering poison s23 and larceny (theft), appealed - quashed, judge misdirected jury
7 of 30
What does s23 provide?
'Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer/to be administered by a person a poison/destructive thing to endanger life/inflict GBH, will be guilty of felony
8 of 30
Why is this case important?
Deals with the statutory meaning of 'maliciously' - means intention/sr with foresight of consequences
9 of 30
What case can be distinguished from this?
Caldwell 1981 where objective recklessness was held to be relevant and re G&R where the HOL stated the test for recklessness in the future should be subjective in all cases
10 of 30
What happened in Fagan 1968?
The D was asked to park his car in a particular place, in doing so he drove over the policeman's foot and when asked to move it swore at the police officer and took his time. He was convicted of assault (assaulting police constable) conviction upheld
11 of 30
Where was this case heard?
In the QBD of the High Court; therefore creating a binding precedent for the Crown and Magistrate's
12 of 30
Why is this case important?
It deals with the scope of assault and battery and the coincidence AR+MR, assault+battery require an act, mens rea must be present, battery can be through an instrument
13 of 30
In this case the judges held there was ample evidence of the actus reus being continuing because:
D remained seated, D switched off the cars ignition, D used words indicating his intention of keeping the wheel in position '**** you, you can wait'
14 of 30
What cases can this be linked with?
Ireland v Burstow
15 of 30
What happened in R v Wilson?
The D was charged with s20 gbh then s47 ABH for getting into an argument on a motorcycle and punching a pedestrian. Conviction was upheld
16 of 30
Who heard this case?
The HOL which set a binding precedent to all lower courts
17 of 30
Why is this case important?
The COA agreed that the point of law was of general public importance, HOL stressed appeals would not have arisen if the P had framed the indictment correctly
18 of 30
What case can this be linked with?
R v Jenkins, Ireland v Burstow
19 of 30
What happened JJC v Eisenhower 1983?
JJC and his friend were 15 in possession of an air gun, fired at a group of teenager with friends encouragement - caused bruising/blood cells, convicted of s20 wounding
20 of 30
Where was this case heard?
QBD in the High Court
21 of 30
What previous cases does this confirm?
R v Wood, R v Shadbolt
22 of 30
Why is this case important?
Considered what amounted to a wound, 'not present unless all layers are broken'
23 of 30
What happened in Ireland & Burstow 1997? (Ireland)
D harassed three women by making repeated silent phone calls and heavy breathing, mostly at night. Guilty of s47 OAPA, appealed but was rejected
24 of 30
What happened in Burstow 1997?
D was convicted of s20 GBH for making silent phone calls and also made abusive phonecalls, offensive cards where she lived, causing V to suffer from depression, took photos of D and her family
25 of 30
Why is this case important?
Develops the law, mental health can amount to ABH&GBH, followed in Chan Fook, stated OAPA is a consolidating statute, considered what 'inflict' meant which followed Wilson, extended GBH law (can be inflicted without direct harm on someone's body)
26 of 30
What cases can this be linked with?
Wilson, Chan Fook, Clarence
27 of 30
What happened in Bollom 2003?
D was convicted of s20 gbh on his 17mth stepdaughter because he caused her cuts/bruises/abrasions that were non accidental, abh substituted on appeal
28 of 30
Why is this case important?
Deals with the definition of GBH, injures would've been much less serious on an adult, held it was appropriate for the jury to judge giving the context (baby)
29 of 30
What can be linked with this case?
Ireland v Burstow, DPP v Smith
30 of 30

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Where was the case heard?

Back

In the QBD of the High Court which therefore set a binding precedent on the Crown/Magistrate's

Card 3

Front

Why is the timing important within this case?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What reasons make this case important?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What points did the judges make when coming to their conclusions in this case?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »