HoL agreed with & followed the same reasoning as the CoA in deciding that a man could be guilty of ****** his wife.
1 of 10
R v Howe (1987)
HoL ruled that duress could not be a defence to a charge of murder.
2 of 10
R v Gotts (1992)
D charged with attempted murder tried to argue that he could the defence of duress, the obiter statement from Howe was followed as persuasive precedent by CoA.
3 of 10
London Street Tramways (1898)
HoL decided that it was bound to follow its own previous decisions.
4 of 10
Conway v Rimmer (1968)
First use of Practice Statement. But only involved a technical point on discovery of docs.
5 of 10
Herrington v BRB (1972)
First major use of Practice Statement on the duty of care owned to child trespassers.
6 of 10
R v Shivpuri (1986) & Pepper v Hart (1993)
HoL showed an increasing willingness to use Practice Statement to overrule previous decisions.
7 of 10
Caldwell (1982)
Practice Statement used to overrule the decision on recklessness in the criminal law.
8 of 10
R v R & G (2003)
Two boys aged 10 & 11 set fire to some paper in a dustbin but the fire spread & caused over a million pounds in damages. Boys were convicted under the law in Caldwell but The Law Lords overruled & the convictions were quashed.
9 of 10
Broome v Cassell (1971) & Miliangos (1976)
CoA tried to challenge the rule that SC is above the CoA in the court hierarchy. HoL rejected this challenge, CoA must follow decisions of the SC/HoL.
10 of 10
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
HoL ruled that duress could not be a defence to a charge of murder.
Back
R v Howe (1987)
Card 3
Front
D charged with attempted murder tried to argue that he could the defence of duress, the obiter statement from Howe was followed as persuasive precedent by CoA.
Back
Card 4
Front
HoL decided that it was bound to follow its own previous decisions.
Back
Card 5
Front
First use of Practice Statement. But only involved a technical point on discovery of docs.
Comments
No comments have yet been made