old common law position re provocation was that the loss of control must have been sudden and temporary
1 of 22
Ibrams (1981)
the old common law position re provocation was consistent with this, which precluded the defence of provocation where the def had planned an attack out of revenge
2 of 22
Zebedee (2013)
where the def killed his elderly father because of his frustration with his dementia, this was seen by the jury to not constitute circumstances that were extremely grave in character
3 of 22
Clinton (2012)
however, sexual infidelity could not be disregarded where it is integral to and forms an essential part of the context in evaluating whether other triggers qualify
4 of 22
Davies (1975)
the provoking act re provocation could come from a 3rd party
5 of 22
Camplin (1978)
old common law test: the def’s sex and age could be taken into account in assessing whether the reasonable man would have acted the way the def did
6 of 22
Smith (Morgan James) (2001)
view changed to allow all circumstances and characteristics of the def to be taken into account- wholly subj test
7 of 22
Holley (2005)
view reverted back to obj test with subj element in Camplin
8 of 22
Asmelash (2013)
voluntary intoxication is not a characteristic which is relevant to the level of control to be expected of the def
9 of 22
McCarthy (1954)
old common law position: the reasonable man is not drunk
10 of 22
Byrne (1960)
The defence covered the mind’s activities in all its aspects and the ability to control one’s physical acts – wide definition
11 of 22
Janiszewski (2012)
PTSD is an abnormality of mind
12 of 22
Spencer (2013)
Asperger’s Syndrome is an abnormality
13 of 22
Dowds (2012)
Alcoholism or alcohol dependency is an abnormality
14 of 22
Seers (1984)
Old common law: depression is an abnormality
15 of 22
Campbell (1997)
Old common law: epilepsy is an abnormality
16 of 22
Byrne (1960)
Old common law: psychopathy is an abnormality
17 of 22
Erskine (2009)
Old common law: schizophrenia is an abnormality
18 of 22
Brown (2012)
The impairment need only be more than minimal
19 of 22
Ramchurn (2010)
The impairment need not extinguish the def’s mental responsibility
20 of 22
Dianne Pretty (2001)
It is an offence to encourage or assist suicide
21 of 22
Nicklinson (2013)
Neither common law defence of nec nor art 8 of ECHR can provide exception to offence of encouraging or assisting suicide
22 of 22
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
the old common law position re provocation was consistent with this, which precluded the defence of provocation where the def had planned an attack out of revenge
Back
Ibrams (1981)
Card 3
Front
where the def killed his elderly father because of his frustration with his dementia, this was seen by the jury to not constitute circumstances that were extremely grave in character
Back
Card 4
Front
however, sexual infidelity could not be disregarded where it is integral to and forms an essential part of the context in evaluating whether other triggers qualify
Back
Card 5
Front
the provoking act re provocation could come from a 3rd party
Comments
No comments have yet been made