Criminal courts

1) Outline the classification of the 3 types of offences

● Summary Offence-least serious offences (most driving offences, assault, battery). Always
tried in MC.
● Triable-either-way Offence- mid-range crimes (theft/assault occasioning ABH). MC decide
where trial is held, can be sent to CC if MC believe they have insufficient sentencing powers
● Indictable Offence- most serious offence (murder/mansuaghter). Preliminary hearing (dfs
identity) at MC then must be tried at CC. Guilty plea=sentence, Nonguilty= jury, then
possible sentence/acquittal

2) Outline the pre-trial procedures for each offence

Summary Offence:
● First Hearing in MC-clerk will take details of df and plea. Legal representation =irrelevant
● Guilty = Mags sentence, Non-guilty=adjourned, then trial by mag
Triable Either Way Offence: MCA 1980
● Plea Before Venue- plea is taken. Guilty = must go MC for sentencing, Non-Guilty=MC
decide mode of trial (can be sent to crown for sentencing)
● Mode of trial: Not guilty plea, MC must decide which court accepts jurisdiction. Can be sent
to CC if MC believe there is breach of trust, complex legal points, df chooses trial there (as
MC have jurisdiction of max 6 months sentence)
Indictable Offence:
● First Hearing- MC. Establish dfs identity/bail or custody/legal representation.
● Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH)- CC. Take df’s plea, set trial date, identify issues for
trial, timetable.
● Guilty=sentence in CC. Non-guilty=trial by jury in CC, then sentence/acquittal

3) Outline the Jurisdiction if the Magistrates Courts

● Local-in most towns, deal with issues in area, unqualified judges, legally qualified clerk to
assist
● Deal with 97 % of criminal cases, powers as follows:
❖ Try all Summary Offences
❖ Try T.E.W offences where MC are prepared to accept jurisdiction. (Carry out plea before
venue for T.E.W .Guilty=sent to MC for sentencing, non guilty-MC decide mode of trial)
❖ Sentence offenders found guilty of summary/T.E.W (max 6 months)
❖ Deal with first hearing of all indictable offences, then immediately sent to CC
❖ Deal with preliminary matters with criminal cases (issuing warrants for arrests/bail)
❖ Try cases in youth court (10-17)

4) Outline the Jurisdiction of the Crown Court

● Deals with triable either way sent by MC/all indictable offences

● Trial begins with PTPH

● Guilty plea=sentence, Nonguilty= jury, then possible sentence/acquittal
● Appeals from MC
5) Outline the appeal route from the Magistrates Court
● 2 different appeal routes, depending on if appeal is on point of law or for other reasons
1. Appeals to the Crown Court- Case reheard by CC judge and 2 magistrates
❖ Available for the defence only
❖ If df pleads guilty, appeal against sentence
❖ If df pleads not guilty/convicted, can appeal against conviction
❖ CC can confirm/vary sentence/conviction (lesser offence)
2. Case stated appeal to the Queen's Bench Division- appeal heard by panel of 2 or 3 judges
❖ Appeal on point of law, comes directly from MC or appeal from CC
❖ Approach: MC came to wrong decision, made mistake about the law (C v DPP-stolen
motorcycle)
❖ Don’t call witnesses or have another trial, based on law of facts
❖ QBD can: confirm,vary, or reverse decision, or send case back to MC to implement decision
of law.
3. Appeals to the Supreme Court
❖ After QBD can appeal to SC if point of law involved or QBD/Supreme Court gives permission
to

6) Outline the appeal route from the Crown Court

1. Appeals by df: if df found guilty at CC, lawyers should advise on appeal possibility (against
conviction/sentence) to the COA (Criminal Division)
● Leave to Appeal- df must obtain permission to appeal from single judge in COA (filters cases)
● Criminal Appeal Act 1995- COA “shall allow an appeal…conviction is unsafe”- new
evidence ?
● COA can: allow appeal & quash/vary conviction OR Dismiss appeal or order retrial
2. Appeal by prosecution against acquittal (limited), if: jury nobbling or new evidence of dfs
guilt (in public interest for retrial) (only available for 30 offences). CJA 2003
● Referring point of law - Judge error explaining law to jury, AG can refer to CoA get ruling +
create precedent
● Against sentence – s.36 CJA 1988 AG can apply for leave to appeal to CoA for resentencing
3. Further appeals to the supreme court- Few criminal appeals are heard by SC, both
prosecution and defence can appeal from CoA to SC, must involve point of law & permission
must be sought
1) Outline the 5 aims of sentencing
● CJA 2005 S142 sets out 5 main aims of sentencing:
1. Punishment of Offenders
● Based on retribution,judge imposes a sentence, due to crime. “An eye for an eye”, form of
vengeance
2. Reduction of crime (via deterrence)
● Indiv. deterrence, aims to ensure df doesnt reoffend via fear of future punishment/general
deterrence (public). Prison sentence/heavy fine
3. Reform&Rehabilitation of offenders
● Altering dfs behaviour so that they don't reoffend in the future. Sentence/Community Order
4. The protection of Public
● Offender unable to commit future crime (murder=life), reckless drivers=disqualified
5. Reparation by offender to persons affected
● Where df compensates victim/society (ie returning stolen goods), reparation schemes to bring V
and df together, unpaid community work

2) Outline the factors in sentencing

● Aggravating factors = increase sentence, mitigating factors=decrease sentence
1. Aggravating Factors
● Type of crime (theft-how much was stolen?), seriousness of crime (death/injury?)
● Previous convictions/bail/non-guilty plea?
● Was victim vulnerable?
2. Mitigating Factors
● No previous conviction, minor part in offence, mental illness/disability
● Guilty plea

3) Outline different types of sentences

1. Custodial Sentence (Imprisonment)
❖ Mandatory Life sentence- for murder only, allowed to state minimum number of years before
parole (ranges from 12-life) Mittigating/aggravting factors considered
❖ Discretionary Life Sentence- judge has discretion for serious offences (S21) where max is life
❖ Fixed-term sentence- imprisonment for set number of months (depends on offence/previous
record). Half sentence served in prison, half on licence in community
❖ Suspended Sentence-up to 2 years, sentence served if another offence is committed during this
period
2. Community Order
❖ Unpaid work (40-300 hrs in community), drug/alcohol treatment, curfew/electronic tagging
3. Fine
❖ Most common, for less serious crimes, depends on severity
4. Discharge
❖ Being brought to judge/mag is punishment enough. Conditional:stay out of trouble if caught
reoffending 1st crime taken into account when sentencing 2nd. Absolute: no conditions, free

4) Evaluate different types of sentences

● Imprisonment
● Removes indiv liberty, strong deterrent/rehabilitation through training can break criminality
● Serious crimes still committed not strong enough deterrent/ only ½ sentence served/recidivism
high 44.75% reoffend within a year/those who serve short sentence (12m) more likely to
reoffend
● Community Orders
● Sentences can be fixed to dfs address (drug treatment), work helps society (paint school
buildings), deterrent-300 hrs unpaid
● Many refuse to participate counter punishment not severe, reparations minimal in reality
● Fine
● Financial penalty so liberty continues, sets fees for committing specific offence
● Easy way out for rich, court administrative fee =higher, many unpaid/written off
 Law & Morality
A01:
● Define Law: set of rules/regulations, passed by formal institutions (Parliament). Objective/
static-applies to everyone the same (speeding).
● Define Morality- personal code of values/beliefs, subjective- change depending on person
● Relationship between the 2: they overlap. Murder- lawfully/morally wrong. “Lawful killing” like
abortion lawful but maybe immoral (religoius groups?).
● 2 groups of thoughts: Positivism & Natural Law theorists. Positivists believe law/morals should
be separate. Naturalists believe law should be used to enforce moral values.
● Positivist Theorist: JS Mill, law shouldnt enforce morality, due to harm principle. Wolfenden
Report 1978, recommended to legalise homosexuality “...a realm of morlaity…not the laws
business”-homosexulaity is subjective
● Positivist Case: R v Wilson- df charged with ABH after consensually branding wife. LJ Russel ruled
“Consensual activity…is not in our judgement”- activity involved private morality
● Natural Theorist: James Fitzjames Stephes, law should enforce morality,“the immorality of an
action, is good reason for it to be a crime”
● Natural Case: R v Brown- dfs guilty after engaging in consensual sadomasochism LJ Templeman
argued “Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing”
A03:
● The law does try to reflect the consensus of moral values in a country. E.g, societies stance on
death penalty changedd after inncoent killings (Timothy Evans)/Incompetent People (Dererk
Bentley), thus the legal stance ALSO changed, banning death penalty in 1965. Law SHOULD
enforce morals
● Need law to enforce morality to prevent return of Nazi Regime (as it was immoral yet legal).
Law SHOULD enforce morality to stop such atrocities/dictatorship
● Difficulty of laws/morality in a pluralist society- As UK is a pluralist society (many
cultures/religions), “progressive laws” may offend some people/groups (abortion/christianity).
Allowing abortion in 1968 offended Chrisitian groups, “thou shall not kill”, BUT I take stance of
JS Mill-explain why!
● Eg: Well Women v Ireland- gov put injuction on companies supplying women on
abortion/pregnancy info, held irish gov had right to protect irish morality, article 2 did not apply.
Unfair !
● Changing views on euthanisa: as society becomes more progessive, topics like euthansia are
changing in favour, (Assisted Dying Bill-HOL). Dianna Pretty- UK/ECtHR refused to acknowledge
right to die under the ECHR. Positivist stance should be taken, no one else is being
harmed/personal choice, showing laws SHOULDNT enforce morals
● Laws should not enforce morality due to individual prejudice. R v Wilson & R v Brown=similar,
BUT Wilson’s charge of ABH dropped but Brown's upheld. Argued Browns charged not dropped
as they were homosexual
● Conclusion: Positivist stance, morals=subjective
 Delegated legislation
Outline the 3 types of Delegated Legislation

● DL = law made by person/body other than p’ment, but with the authority from an act of p’ment

● P’ment authority to pass DL laid down in Parent Act of P’ment, known as “Enabling Act”

● 3 types of DL:
1) Byelaws- Local Effect
● Made by local authorities to deal with matters affecting local areas (usually involves traffic
control/regulating behaviour). 2002- Manchester City banned drinking in town centres.
● Can also be made by public corporations/companies within jurisdiction that affect public, in
that area. TFL enforcing rules about public behaviour on premises
2) Statutory Instruments- Local/National Effect
● Rules/Regulations made by gov ministers, under authority of EA. Adds to statute law, can be
short/long as it may be too complex to be in act of p’ment
● Criminal Evidence Act 1984- gave power to Sec. of State for Justice to add police codes of
practise (stop & search), required expert ministers in departments
3) Orders in Council- National Effect
● Made by Queen + privy council (PM & leading gov members), allows gov to make laws
without going through lengthy process
● Used when: bringing acts of parliament into force, to make laws in emergencies (war), to
make other types of law
● 2003, used to downgrade Cannabis to Class C Drug, under Misuse of Drugs Act
● Reasons for DL= Detailed law, expert knowledge, local knowledge, quick in emergencies

2) Outline the different types of control on Delegated Legislation

Control by Parliament:
● Approval of Parent Act- Parliament has initial control over SI, as EA sets out limits (which
gov ministers, type of laws, local/national effect). P’ment can repeal powers in EA at any
time.
● Negative Resolution Procedure- SI will become law in 40 days if it isn’t objected by P’ment
● Affirmative Resolutions-Some SI must be approved by both houses in P’ment
● Scrutiny Committee reports issue with SI to P’ment BUT can’t change SI, Can refer SI to
Parliament if it imposes tax, beyond powers, unclear

Control by Courts:

● DL can be challenged in court, by a person with sufficient standing/interest in case, on

grounds DL is Ultra Vires
● Procedural ultra Vires- procedure in EA have not been followed.
● Substantive Ultra Vires-when rule making body has no power to make rules under EA.
● Wednesbury Unreasonableness- when a decision is unreasonable, no rsble body would
impose it

1) Advantages and Disadvantages of Delegated Legislation

Adv:
● Saves P’ment time/Quick law making - P’ment doesn’t have time to consider/debate every
small detail. Allows P’ment to debate more important. O.I.C esp important for quick law making
in times of emergency like covid
● Access to Technical Expertise/local knowledge – MPS are not experienced in all areas of society
(science/transport) Sec of Justice/Stop&Search Under Criminal Evidence Act 1984, MPs don’t
know issues affecting local areas, so BL allows local councils with local knowledge to make laws.
2002 Manchester Banned Drinking in town Centres
● East to amend/flexibility- Allows laws to get updated yearly, ensuring they don’t get outdated
(yearly update on minimum wage)
● Control- Parliamentary & judicial control
Disadv:

● Undemocratic/hard to keep up with- Passes law making powers to unelected bodies,

2014=3314 SI, dangerously powerful, volume = hard to keep up with. What is present law ?
● Parliament lack of control- Scrutiny committee have no power to amend DL = limited
involvement, Negative Resolution Procedure means MPs only have 40 days to check DL and they
may be pre occupied, Affirmative Resolution procedure rarely occurs!
● Difficult wording- Similar to P’ment Acts, difficult wording means public find it hard to
read/understand law, courts have to interpret definition of law.
● Sub Delegation- ministers are not experts, so pass SI law making to civil servants, unelected
 Fatal offences
Murder
● Mandatory life sentence, comes from common law (Lord Coke's definition) :
● “The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace with malice aforethought”
Actus Reus
● “The unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s Peace” 4 must be proved:
1. The defendant killed: can be act/omission (R v Gibbins & Proctor)
● Which causes death of the victim. Factual Causation-But for test (Pagett) & De minimis rule
● Legal Causation- Thin Skull Test, df must take victim as they find them (Blaue) & Chain of
causation- intervening acts may break chain (White). Switching of life support does not break
chain of causation (Malcherek & Steel)
2. A “human being” must be killed. Attorney General’s Reference 1997 Foetus is not a human
being.
3. Under the Queen's Peace: killing enemy during war is not murder
4. The killing was “unlawful”- killing is not unlawful if in self-defence, defence of another, or in
prevention of crime & df used reasonable force (Beckford). Excessive force = murder (Martin)

Mens Rea
● “Malice aforethought express or implied”
1. Intention to kill
2. Intention/Recklessness to cause GBH (cause serious harm) (Vickers)
3. Oblique Intention- Woollin- jury can find intention if death/serious injury was a VC as a result of
the dfs actions/df appreciated this. F.OC. is evidence of intention

Murder cases
● R v Gibbins & Proctor-failure to feed daughter=AR for murder (ommission)
● Pagett- df used gf as shield whilst he shot at armed police, police shot gf, Pagett convicted of
manslaughter. She would not have died “but for'' him using her as a shield
● Blaue- V stabbed by df, refused blood transfusion, df still guilty, had to take V as he found her
● White- df put poison in Vs milk with intent to kill, V took few sips, V died of heart attack not
poison, liable for attempt. Intervening act
● Malcherek & Steel- wife stabbed gf, switching off life support, doesnt break chain of causation,
seems to establish life ends when brain is dead
● AGs Ref 1994- foetus not considered a human being
● Beckford- policemen called to deal with gunman in house, man ran out, df killed him. Conviction
quashed, force was “reasonable”
● Martin- df shot burglars in house, one died from shot in back, which seemed “excessive” force
● Vickers- df broke into sweet shop, punched/kicked old lady in head, intention to cause
GBH=murder
● Woollin- df threw 3 month old baby on hard surface, baby died. Df must relasie death/serious
injury is a VC, then jury can find intention

Voluntary Manslaughter- unlawful killing with intent, but special defence

Diminished Responsibility
● Partial defence to murder, if df argues successfully on B.O.P, charge redcued to VM

Definition:
● Set out in S52 C&JA, must prove the person “who kills or is party to a killing of another…was
suffering from:

1. “An Abnormality of Mental Functioning” (which)

● Defined in Byrne, “a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the
reasonable man would term it abnormal”

2. “Arose from a Recognised Medical Condition” (that)

● Must be medical evidence
● Physiological/Physical conditions (depression,bipolar,epilepsy,diabetes) R v Conroy

3. 'Substantially Impaired the dfs ability to:”

● Lloyd- “Substantial”-not total/minimal mental impairment, in between, up to jury to decide
1. Understand the nature of his conduct- covers: automatic state/doesn't know what they are doing,
suffers from delusions, severe learning difficulties/low mental age
2. Form rational judgement- covers: sz,paranoia/BWS
3. Exercise self-control- Byrne, no self control over desires

4. Provides an explanation for the df’s conduct

● AMF must cause/significant factor to killing

DR & Intoxication
● Intoxication alone is not a defence for DR. Dowds BUT Alcohol dependency syndrome can be an
AMF. Wood
● Dietschmann- if jury find AMF whilst intoxication = there is a defence

Diminished Responsibility cases

● Byrne- df was sexual psycopath, strangled/multiated V, avidence showed he was unable to
control desires = AMF/no ability to exercise self control
● Lloyd- df stabbed wife, depressive episodes proven to be more than minimal, less than total
● Dowds- df drunkenly stabbed/killed gf 60 times, intoxication not a defence for DR
 ● Dietschmann- df killed V, as he felt V was disprecting memory of dead aunt, intoxicated too.
Evidence of depressive grief episode = AMF, even though intoxicated
● Wood- df woke to v trying to perform oral sex on him, df beat/killed v with meat clever.
Evidence of ADS = AMF

Voluntary Manslaughter- - unlawful killing with intent, but special defence

Loss of Control
● Partial defence to murder, if df argues successfully on B.O.P, charge redcued to VM

Definition
● Set out in S54 C&JA, must prove the person “who kills or is party to a killing of another:”

1. Lost of Self Control

● Need not be sudden. Df must really have lost it/snapped. If act is of revenge, temper, anger, pre-
planned, or out of character = VM not sufficient. Jewell.

2. As a result of a Qualifying Trigger, must be:

● S55(3):Fear of serious violence to df from V R v Ward-can be from another identified person. If df
incites violence, can't rely on qualifying trigger R v Dawes OR
● S55(4): Thing/things done or said which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave
character and caused the df to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (R v Zebedee)
● Excluded matters: sexual infidelity never a qualifying trigger, unless integral to context with other
QT. R v Dawes

3. A person of the same age + sex might have reacted in a same/similar way-OBJ test
● Someone of same sex/age with normal degree of tolerance/self-restraint would react in the same
way. DPP v Camplin- Other circumstances of df can be taken into account
● R v Asmelash- Voluntary intoxication not allowed, if person was sober would act same LOC can be
allowed if intox

Loss of Control cases

● R v Jewell- Df felt v was intimidating/planning to kill him, became unwell/depressed, so
shot/killed V. Insufficient evidence of LOC, irritation/anger doesn't = LOC. grave circumstances
only
● R v Ward- df successfully pleaded LOC, after killing V, who headbutted dfs brother
● R v Dawes- df returned home to find wife sleeping with v, df stabbed/killed v. Df could not rely
on QT, he incited violence.
● R v Zebedee- df killed 94-yr old father with alzheimers after repeatedly soiling himself, did not
constitute to circumstances of extremely grave character/df being seriously wronged
● DPP v Camplin- 15 yr old hit/killed man, after he raped him. Someone of the same age would
react in the same way
● R v Asmelash- Voluntary intoxication not allowed, if person was sober would act same LOC can
be allowed if intox
Involuntary Manslaughter- unlawful killing with no intention to kill/cause GBH

Unlawful Act (Constructive Manslaughter)- df unlawfully kills while committing a crime, 4 elements
must be proven:

1. The df must do an Unlawful Act

● Must include unlawful act (crime). E.g criminal damage (Hancock & Shankland)
● Must be act not omission (R v lowe)

2. The act must be Dangerous on an objective test

● “Some harm”- obj test, rsble person doesnt have to foresee specific harm R v JM & SM
● Act doesn’t need to be directed to victim R v Larkin
● Act can be against property not just person R v Goodfellow
● Must be of physical harm, not just psychological R v Dawson. Unless df could have foreseen
reaction based on appearance R v Watson

3. The act must Cause the Death

● Unlawful act must cause death. Factual/legal causation

4. The df must have the required MR for the unlawful act

● Df must have MR for unlawful act (crime committed). DPP v Jones

Unlawful Act (Constructive Manslaughter) cases

● Hancock & Shankland--dfs killed taxi driver,by throwing concrete on below road, as they were
on strike = unlawful act (criminal damage)
● R v Lowe-df neglected son, COA quashed manslaughter conviction, omission doesnt create
liability for IM
● R v JM & SM- Dfs kicked fire door of nightclub/fought doormen, one died. Prosecution appeal
allowed, don't have to foresee specific harm, just risk of some physical harm
● R v Larkin- df threatened man with razor, V intervened fell on razor/died, assault against man,
doesnt have to be aimed at victim
● R v Goodfellow- df set fire to council flat, Vs died, U.A.M upheld, unlawful act can be against
property
● R v Dawson- Petrol station died of heart attack after robbery, causing fear not enough for UAM
● R v Watson-Df shouted abuse at old man after breaking in, v died of heart attack, court ruled
you must take into account age/condition of victim
● DPP v Jones- df pushed stone on train killing guard, df had MR for unlawful act

Involuntary Manslaughter-unlawful killing with no intention to kill/cause GBH

Gross Negligence Manslaughter- df unlawfully kills by a grossly negligent act/omission

● 3 things must occur, from Adomako

1. Df owes V Duty of Care
● Civil concept of DOC applies, Donoghue v Stevenson- DOC “proximate relationship”
● Can be contractual DOC R v Singh
● Situations can lead to DOC R v Wacker
● DOC can exist where df has created a state of affairs, which they reasonably know, has become
life threatening. R v Evans

2. Df breaches DOC causing V s death

● Up to jury to decide, did df negligently do/fail to do something ? (can be act/omission)
● BDOC=death, thus causation rules apply

3. Gross Negligence which jury consider to be criminal

● Must show “gross” negligence. Bateman- “Gross” “showed such disregard for the life & safety of
others, as to amount to a crime”
● Must be serious/obvious risk of death. Adomako

4. Mens Rea
● R v Bateman ‘showed such disregard for life and safety of others’

Gross Negligence Manslaughter cases

● Adomako- established 3 elements for GN. Df was anaesthetist, during op. Tube supplying oxygen
became disconnected, leading to heart attack. Dfs failure to act was abysmal
● Donoghue v Stevenson- Neighbour principle to establish DOC, anyone who is closely/directly
affected my my actions = proximate relationship
● R v Singh- df was landlord of property where tenants died from faulty gas fire, contractual DOC
● R v Wacker- df brought 60 illegal immigrants, closed vent from lorry=58 dead, he owed DOC
● R v Evans- df bought heroin for drug addict sister, who OD=died, df created state of affairs
● R v Bateman-GN=showed such disregard for the life & safety of others, as to amount to a crime

Tort and cases

Liability In Negligence
● Negligence is defined as failing to do something which a reasonable person would do or doing
something which a reasonable person would not do
● Claimant must prove 3 points on the balance of probabilities. There was a Duty of care +Breach
of duty + Reasonably Foreseeable Injury or Damage caused.
● 1st part to establish is D.O.C owed by the df. to clmnt, creating legal relationship. Caparo V
Dickman set down 3-part test to establish D.O.C. All 3 parts must be established for claim to
continue
❖ Was the injury/harm caused reasonably foreseeable Kent v Griffiths Ambulance
❖ The proximity of relationship Bourhill V Young Motorcyclist,blood
❖ Is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

● 2nd part to establish is breach of duty by asking if the df is performing the task competently
● For a professional this is the standard of the profession as a whole Montgomery v Lanarkshire

● For a child this is the standard of a child of that age Mullin v Richards Ruler

● Courts also take into account risk factors, df must consider risks to see if care should be raised

●
❖ Has the CLAIMANT got any special characteristics to take account of (Paris) Eye, goggles
❖ What is the SIZE of the risk being taken (Bolton) Cricket ball
❖ Have all the PRECAUTIONS been taken (Latimer) Sawdust
❖ Were the risks KNOWN ABOUT at the time of the accident
❖ Is there a PUBLIC benefit to taking the risk

● 3rd part to establish is, was damage/injury reasonably foreseeable?

Factual Causation:
❖ But for rule; if damage was not reasonably foreseeable then claim will fail
❖ Remoteness of damage- damage can’t be too remote Wagon Mound Oil spilled=fire + not
liable

Legal Causation:
❖ Res Ipsa Loquitor – thing speaks for itself St Katherine’s Dock
❖ Egg shell test- If injury is more serious because clmnt had a pre-existing condition then the
defendant is liable for ALL the consequences- Smith v Leech Brain and Co- molten
metal/cancer

Liability in Negligence cases

● Caparo v Dickman- Set 3-part test to establish D.O.C

● Kent v Griffiths- Ambulance failed to arrive after asthma attack, liable, rsbly fsble further illness

● Bourhill v Young- Pregnant women suffered miscarriage after seeing dead motorcyclist & blood,
not liable, not proximate enough relationship
● Montgomery v Lanarkshire- Clmnts baby born with cerebral palsy, doctor failed to disc lose risk,
Liable
● Mullin v Richards- 2 15 yr olds played with rules, 1 snapped and blinded girl’s eye. Child not
liable, didn’t have to meet the standard of a competent adult, just child
● Paris v Stepney Borough Council- Employer was aware Paris was blind, didn’t provide goggles,
good eye damaged, Employer = liable
● Bolton v Stone- Cricket ball hit lady passer-by, not LIABLE only 6 balls hit out in 30 years

● Latimer v AEC- Factory flooded, sawdust spread to prevent I jury, workers returned, one slipped.
Not liable = precautions were taken
● Scott v London- Clmnt injured by 6 bags of sugar, don’t know how they fell, warehouse liable
“the thing speaks for itself”

Occupiers Liability Act 1957

● The owner/tenant of the premises owes a DOC to anyone visiting/in the premises (lawful visitor
only) If they get injured the courts will decide if the Occupier is liable.
● Occupier- not defined in act but through common law, “person occupying or in control of the
premises, not necessarily the owner/tenant” Wheat v Leacon- occupier can be more than 1
● Premises developed but is defined vaguely as ‘fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel,
vehicle and aircraft.’
● 4 types of lawful Visitors:
❖ Invitees- invited/have express permission to enter (school)
❖ Licensees- express/implied permission to be on land for specified time period (fun fair)
❖ Statutory right- police with warrants
❖ Contractual permission- bought an entry ticket for an event (concert)
● Occupier owes common DOC, that “Visitors will be reasonably safe”- not completely (Laverton v
Kiapasha Takeaway supreme)-slip resistant tiles, rain, broken ankle

● For children additional steps taken for premises to be safe, occupier must be prepared for
‘children to be less careful than adults… reasonably safe for a child of that age’
● Must also ensure premises is free of allurement/attraction for children which may cause harm
(Taylor v Glasgow City Council)-7 yr old unfenced berries in park

● Occupier not liable if tradesmen fail to guard against risks, they should know about. Roles v
Nathan-chimney sweeps

● If the visitor is injured by a workman’s negligent work, the occupier may have a defence, 3-part
test:
❖ It must be reasonable for the occupier to have given work to the independent contractor-
Haseldine- plummeting lift
❖ The contractor hired must be competent to carry out the task Bottomly v Todmorden
uninsured stunt team
❖ The occupier must check the work has been properly done Woodward v Mayor of Hastings-
icy school steps
• Warning notices- A COMPLETE DEFENCE to OL. Can be ORAL or WRITTEN. Ineffective unless:
“it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe”
• Rae v Mars- injured by pit in shed/warning sign insufficient/too dark

Occupiers Liability 1957 cases

● Wheat v Leacon- occupier can be more than 1, as manager and tenants were both occupiers

● Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway supreme-Df had slip resistant tiles, moped floor after rain, clmnt
broke ankle on tiles. Occ NOT LIABLE, took reasonable steps
● Taylor v Glasgow City Council- 7 yr old died after eating berries in a park that were unfenced.
Occ LIABLE, failed to protect against allurement
● Roles v Nathan-chimney sweeps died inhaling C0. Occ. not liable, tradesman failed to guard
against risks they should know about
● Haseldine- IC killed after plummeting lift. Occ not liable, reasonable to give work to specialist

● Bottomley v Todmorden Claimant was burned by fireworks (uninsured stunt team) Occ liable,
failed to give work to competent contractor
● Woodward v Mayor of Hastings- child injured on icy steps, occ liable, school failed to check
work done properly
● Rae v Mars- injured by pit in shed/warning sign insufficient/too dark

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

● Applies to unlawful visitors (trespassers)- not defined in statute, but through common law: “a
trespasser is someone who goes on land without any sort of permission & whose presence is
unknown”
● Only PI is covered NOT death, injury or damage to property as trespassers deserve LESS
protection than lawful visitors

● The occupier will only owe a DOC if: S1(3)

(a) He is aware of the danger (or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists)

(b) He knows others are in the vicinity of the danger, or may come into it

(c) The risk is one against which the occupier is expected to offer some protection

● Adult Trespassers: Courts introduced concept of obvious danger:

1) The Occupier will NOT be liable IF the trespasser is injured by an OBVIOUS DANGER
Ratcliff v MCconnell- fence, college pool
2) Time of day + year = relevant, as occupier must be aware of risk of trespasser
Donoghue v Folkstone- harbour, winter/midnight
3) Occupier does not need to spend lots of money to protect from obvious danger
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council - diving in park lake
4) Not liable if occupier had no reason to suspect presence of trespassers
Higgs v Foster-police, pit, surveillance
5) The occupier will NOT be liable if he was NOT AWARE of the danger/ had no reason to suspect
the danger existed
Rhind v Astbury Water Park (2004)- glass at bottom of lake

● The same statutory (legal) rules apply to child visitors, judges take the same approach as with
adults Keown v Coventry Healthcare Trust (2006) – hospital fire escape
● WARNING – Effective for a defence, especially with adults. Children depends on the age
and understanding of the child

Occupiers Liability 1984 cases

● Ratcliff v MCconnell-19 yr old hurt after climbing college fence to pool/occ. not liable OD

● Donoghue v Folkstone-claimant injured on harbour, winter/midnight/occ not liable

unpredictable
● Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council -clmnt injured by diving in park lake, occ. not liable/
claimant chose to take risk
● Higgs v Foster-police injured falling in pit doing surveillance, occ. not liable/ no reason to suspect
presence of police
● Rhind v Astbury Water Park-swimmer injured by glass at bottom of lake/occ. not liable unaware
there was fibreglass
● Keown v Coventry Healthcare Trust – 11 yr old fell of fire escape/occ not liable

PRIVATE NUISANCE
• Private nuisance = where an action will be taken because someone’s USE or ENJOYMENT of their
property is affected by the UNREASONABLE behaviour of a neighbour
• 2 parties to action: claimant and defendant
• Df = Causing/allowing nuisance, usually the occupier of land/one in control of land, but doesn’t
always have to have interest in land (short term tenant)
• Claimant = MUST have interest in the land/affected by the nuisance (can’t be owners’ family)
Hunter v Canary Wharf Canary wharf/tv reception.
• Df’s unlawful use of land does not mean illegal but that its unreasonable
• Generally direct interference, but over the years indirect interferences have been amounted to
nuisance: Noise, smell, fumes vibrations – Sturges v Bridgman-doctor/sweet factory
• Courts are prepared to protect feelings or emotional distress Thompson –Schwab v Costaki –
brothel/respected London area
• Courts introduced factors of reasonableness- to decide if use of land by df is unreasonable
❖ Locality – character of neighbourhood, is it Residential? Industrial? Countryside? Sturgess v
Bridgman- doctor/sweet factory
❖ Duration- usually continuous at unreasonable hours, contrasted by Crown River Cruises v
Kimbolton Fireworks- river barge set alight/actionable nuisance (20 mins)
❖ Sensitivity of the claimant – Network Rail v Morris-new rail tracks affected clmnt’s recording
studio/occ not liable, clmnt’s
❖ Malice – Deliberately harmful act? Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett-minks
❖ Social benefit – Action may be reasonable if it benefits community Miller v Jackson- garden
affected, cricket club, social benefit
❖ Time of day/week-dog barking all night
• Possible defences may be:
❖ Prescription – Df may say they have prescriptive right to continue, if they have carried out
nuisance for last 20 years, but if someone new moves in they can claim a private nuisance
 ❖ Moving to the nuisance – Df may try argue, claimant moved to nuisance, this argument will
NOT give defence in court Sturgess v Bridgman
❖ Statutory authority – Planning Permission

Private nuisance cases

● Hunter v Canary Wharf- Building of canary wharf effected buildings TV reception, df not liable
only those with interest in land could claim, not family members
● Sturges v Bridgman- Doctor lived near sweet factory for years, built consulting room in garden,
complained of factory vibrations, df tried to argue prescription no one complained for 20 years,
df liable, nuisance started when room was built
● Thompson –Schwab v Costaki-Df ran brothel in respectable London area, nuisance, emotional
stress caused to residents
● Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks- river barge set alight/actionable nuisance (20 mins)

● Network Rail v Morris-new rail tracks affected clmnt’s recording studio/occ not liable, clmnt’s
equipment overly sensitive
● Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett- df told son to shoot gun, and frighten claimants’ minks, df
liable done out of malice
● Miller v Jackson-claimants use of garden affected by cricket club/ not liable/provides social
benefit

Rylands & Fletcher

● Definition- A person’s property is damaged by the escape of non-naturally stored material onto
adjoining property
● 4 elements must be established as in Rylands v Fletcher
1) Bringing onto the land- substance must be brought onto land
If naturally present no liability Giles v Walker
NOR if it naturally accumulates Ellison v Ministry of Defence
2) Thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes- test of foreseeability, damage likely to be caused
is foreseeable, not escape (eg fumes)
LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd & Stannard v Gore
3) Non-natural use of the land
Rickards v Lothian-storage of items associated with domestic use of land not considered
even if dangerous (water supply,electrical wiring)
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather - Some activities may lead to danger
(unnatural use of land) but public benefit
4) The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage- stored item must escape.
Stannard v Gore- DF not liable it was the TYRES that needed to escape for the df to be liable
NOT the fire
Cambridge Water Co-not rsbly foreseeable spillage would result in bore closing
● 6 defences
1) Volenti- no defence if the claimant has consented to the thing accumulated by the defendant-
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
2) Act of a stranger- Perry v Kendricks Transport
3) Common benefit- Dunne v North West Gas Board
4) Act of God- Nichols v Marsland
5) Statutory Authority
6) Contributory negligence

Rylands v Fletcher cases

● Rylands v Fletcher- df employed contractor to build reservoir, failed to seal of mines, flooded
adjoining property = LIABLE
● Giles v Walker- Seeds from weed blew into neighbouring land destroying crop, df NOT liable
weed naturally growing, did NOT bring onto land
● Ellison v Ministry of defence- rainwater naturally accumulated, not stored there, so df was NOT
liable
● LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd- Df accumulated fire risk items in
factory unnaturally, fire from factory spread=LIABLE (fire likely to spread)
● Stannard v Gore -Df stored tyres (related to business), caught fire damaging adjoining property,
not liable. Hadn’t brought dangers onto land, tyres didn’t escape, land use not unnatural
● Rickards v Lothian-Tap blocked in df’s flat, caused water damage floor below, Df NOT LIABLE,
use of water in domestic pipe is NATURAL use of land
● Musgrove v Pandelis-Car garage full of petrol was considered unnatural use of land
● Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather- df stored chemicals from business, spilled
into borehole, contaminating local water. DF NOT LIABLE, local employment source, not rsbly
fsble
● Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre- claimant leased shop next to theatre, clematis shop damaged
by bust sprinkler pipe, NOT LIABLE clmnt consented to sue of sprinkler as it was installed prior to
lease
● Perry v Kendricks Transport- dfs parked bus, strangers removed petrol cap, threw match,
injuring child. Dfs NOT liable, defence of act of stranger
● Dunne v North West Gas Board- Burst water main, caused gas to escape, causing explosions,
injuring 5 claimants. NOT LIABLE, did not hold gas for own benefit
● Nichols v Marsland- df made artificial lakes by dammin natural stream, storms caused banks to
break claimants bridge, NOT LIABLE, Act of God

Vicarious Liability
● Vicarious Liability is when the employer is held legally responsible for the negligent acts of his
employees
● Clmnt must prove 2 things: 1) Was the alleged tortfeasor an employee? 2) Was the alleged
tortfeasor acting in the course of employment?

1) Was the alleged tortfeasor an employee? - 3 tests

● The Control Test- The employer must have control over work & how it’s done (Hawley v
Lumiere)
● The Integration Test- Employee must work within company not alongside (Stevenson v
McDonalds)
● The Economic Reality Test- Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions set out 3 elements.
(Employee agrees to provide work in return for wage, employee accepts work will be controlled,
contract of employment)
● Recent developments- in some cases there is no traditional employment, so the court will
decide individually if employer is liable. E v English Province

2) Was the alleged tortfeasor acting in the course of employment

● Employee acting against orders, employer is liable (Limpus v London General)

● Employee gives unauthorised lift, employer not liable (Twine v Beans Express)
● Employee causes injury acting outside employment, employer not liable (Hilton v Thomas
Burton ltd)
● Employee acting on a frolic of his own- committing tort outside area & time of work, employer
not liable (Hilton v Thomas Burton ltd)
● Employee committing a criminal act, employer may be vicariously liable if there is close enough
connection between crime and job of employee (Lister v Hesley Hall & Mohamud v Morrisons
Supermarket)
● Employee committing a negligent act, employer may be liable for injuries caused (Century
Insurance vs Northern Ireland Transport Board
● If 2 tests can be proven, df is liable and employer must pay damages to claimant

● Under Civil Liability Act 1978- the employer can recover from employee, compensation paid out

Vicarious Liability cases

● Hawley v Luminar- Bouncer supplied by agency, hit customer, club VL as they controlled his
work
● Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonald & Evan- Whilst engineer was employed, he couldn’t
use info gathered for his book, but was allowed when he was an IC
● Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions- Driver contracted with a concrete company.
Vehicle in company colours, working hours flexible & pay was subject. Driver not employee;
didn’t meet 3 parts
● E v English province: Clmnt abused by nun & priest, held priest was AKIN to employee and
bishop was AKIN to employer = VL
● Limpus v London General- bus driver instructed not to race with other buses, driver was in
course of employment
● Twine v Beans express- lorry driver gave lift to 3rd party who was killed, NOT VL expressly forbid

● Rose v Plenty- Milkman hired boy to help deliver, forbid, boy injured, employer VL as they
benefited from employment
● Hilton v Thomas Burton- Hilton & others took a work van at lunch, crashed, Hilton killed.
Employer not VL, as they were on an “unauthorised frolic”
● Lister v Hesley Hall- Warden assaulted kids, close enough connection between actions & job, VL
● Century Insurance v Northern Ireland- employer VL for petrol tanker when he lit a cigarette &
threw match at petrol station causing explosion

Lay people
1) Describe the qualification, selection, & appointment process for juries

Qualifications:

● Qualifications set out in Juries Act 1974

● Aged between 18-70, on electoral register, resident in the UK for at least 5 years since age of
13
● Disqualified for life if these have been sentenced to: imprisonment for life/ for public
protection, extended sentence or have a sentence of 5 years or more
● Disqualified for 10 years if sentences of less than 5 years were passed, suspended sentences,
community orders, bail
● Ineligible Mental disorder/ lack capacity (can’t speak English)

● Excused Application made to Jury Central Summoning Bureau, can be excused if serving in the
armed forces
● Discretionary excusal for “good reason” e.g., exams pregnancy etc, Service deferred

Selection:

● Chosen randomly every fortnight from electoral register by Central Summoning Bureau

● Jury vetting (police checks/wider background checks) can be used pre-trial by either side to
challenge appropriateness of jurors

Appointment:

● 12 chosen at random in court by the clerk

● Remainder still sit in court (separately) as a back-up in long or important trials

● 1st name = foreperson

2) Outline the role of the jury in criminal cases

● Used in Crown Court, sit in a panel of 12 for 2% of cases
 ● Directed Acquittal- if judge decides there’s insufficient evidence, jury is directed to find df
not guilty
● When trial ends, judge will summarise case, direct on points of law, the jury go to a private
room and decide on a verdict (guilty/not)
● Must try for unanimous verdict, if not maj of 10;2 or 11;1, maj verdict allowed since 1967 to
stop bribery
● No intimidation/bribery. Bushell’s case- jury found preaching quaker innocent, judge
ordered jury be locked up until they reached verdict court could accept, after 9weeks lord
chief justice stepped in, jury can’t be bullied

3) Outline advantages and disadvantages of juries

Advantages:

● Public Confidence- being judged by ordinary members of public, rather than professional
judges
● Jury Equity- jurors are not legal experts so not bound by precedent/ acts and don’t need to give
ratio decidendi, so can uphold a decision ordinary members of society would agree to. R v
Ponting- jury found civil servant legally wrong but morally right for leaking the sinking of an
Argentine ship during Falkland war=not guilty
● Secrecy of jury room- jury decides verdict in private, free for pressure, protected from outside
influence when deciding verdict. Bushels case
● Impartiality- as they are unconnected to any party, random selection, should cancel each
other's biases. Juries not case hardened-only sit for 2 weeks (3-4 cases)
● Representative- compared to judges/mags. Age from 18-75, wide range of social backgrounds

Disadvantages:

● Slow, expensive, unpopular, explain points of law increases trail length/paying judge/court
staff. Compulsory nature of jury means people may not want to do it, can interfere with work &
family life
● Jury tampering- friends/family can bribe jury into non-guilty verdict /threatening them. R v
Twomey- dfs charged with large robbery from warehouse at Heathrow. Threats made to jury- 3
collapsed trials = £22mil, new protection of jury would cost 1.5mil. Thus, COA said trial without
jury = accepted
● Lack of neutrality- racial bias, although there are 12 indiv biases can still affect jurors. Saunders
v UK- juror wrote note to judge, that other jurors were being racists. ECtHR ruled breach of
right to fair trial, jury should’ve been dismissed
● Media Influence- media coverage of cases, especially high profile, may influence jurors. R v
Taylor & Taylor- 2 sisters sharged with murder, newspaper published still from vid, which gave
false impression. COA quashed conviction, on basis of false impression pic had
● Unrepresentative & unfitness- selection based on electoral register = unfair. No intelligence
test used, long trial may be complicated to understand.Lack of reasoning behind decision = jury
didn't understand case

1) Describe the qualification, selection and appointment of a lay Magistrate

Qualification:
● Volunteer citizens who work unpaid, sit in MC and deal with the majority of criminal
cases. No professional legal qualifications
● Aged between 18-65 (retire at 70). Must demonstrate 6 qualities
(commitment,reliability,good character). Must sit for at least 26 half days each year
● Musnt have serious criminal conviction/bankrupt
Selection:
● Recruited/selected by network of 47 local advisory committees- made up of
magistrates/non
● Character reference sought before interview. 2 interviews held (determines 6
qualities/2 case studies), before recommendation is made to senior presiding judge
Appointment:
● Crime & Courts Act- gives appointment power to Lord chief justice, but he delegated
this power to the senior presiding judge
2)Explain the role of a Magistrate in the Criminal system
● Usually sit on a ‘Bench’ of 3
● Hear all Summary offences/Either way offences where df chooses to be tried in MC
● Sentence guilty defendants (6 months max)
● Carry out preliminary hearings (early administrative hearings for indictable offences)
remand hearings(case put back for later date) and applications for Bail
● Non guilty plea- M holds trial and decides guilt/sentence
● Sit in the Crown Court to hear appeals from the Magistrates’ court. Here 2 magistrates
sit with one District/Recorder/Circuit judge
● Specially qualified magistrates sit in the Youth court to hear charges for 10-17 yr olds

3) Outline the advantages & disadvantages of using lay magistrates in criminal cases

Advantages:

● Cost – Much cheaper than using the crown court as they are volunteers
● Speed- Cases are dealt with quickly, trial occurs in a month, dealt with in minutes
● Gender Balance- male 51%, female 49% far better than among the Judiciary
● Local Involvement – M live within a 15 mile radius of the court they preside in

Disadvantages:
● Unrepresentative- average age over 50, often from professional backgrounds
● Inconsistency in sentencing- some areas have harsher punishments for similar crimes
● Reliance on Clerk
● Prosecution bias- believe police too readily, over time become less sympathetic

Statutory interpretation
1) Outline Statutory interpretation

● Judges may need to interpret the language in Acts of P’ment as sometimes: word are
ambiguous, too broad, progress of technology or an error in drafting.
● The 4 rules give guidance to judges: Literal, golden, mischief rule & purposive approach

● Literal Rule: When judges use the exact meaning of words when interpreting statute, no matter
how absurd the outcome. Can lead to harsh decisions
● London & North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman- Widow failed compensation claim after
husband died oiling tracks, act only prepared for “relaying/repairing” not “maintaining”

● Golden Rule: Extension of literal rule, where words will be given their exact meaning unless the
result will be absurd. Narrow approach: Courts choose between possible meanings of words, if
there’s only 1 this must be used. Wider approach: Judges can modify words to avoid absurd
results
● Re Sigsworth- Son murdered mum, act allowed inheritance to be passed to him. Courts used
golden rule to avoid this

● Mischief Rule- Looks back at the gap in previous law, and interprets the act to cover up the gap.
Heydon’s case- Acknowledge common law, what was the mischief common law provided/how
to suppress mischief
● Smith v Hughes- Prostitutes were not “in a street” but called from houses, judge ruled they were
guilty Act aimed to clean streets

● Purposive Approach- Extension of the mischief rule. Judges don’t just look to see what the gap
was in law, but decide what parliament meant to achieve with new law. ECtHR
● R v S of S (Quintaville)- Pro life agency said research into cloning is against the embryology act.
“embryo” is defined in act“…where fertilisation is complete”. Cloned embryos have not been
fertilised. Pro-life agency failed; parliament was unaware that embryos could be created through
cloning

● Intrinsic aids- “Inside the Act”, include: Preamble, introduction text, long title = clues to help
with mischief/purposive approach. Notes in margin, glossary of key terms
● Extrinsic aids- “Outside the Act” include: dictionaries published at time of act, historical context
of act, Hansard (Debate from Parliament). Interpretation Act (He=she)
● Must interpret law in compatibility with ECHR
2) Outline the Advantages & Disadvantages
● Literal Rule- Respect P’ment Soverignity-judge should apply law as written stops unelected
judges making law, provides certainty for lawyers/public on how law will be applied, forces
P’ment to be clear. Assumes every Act is perfect, words may have multiple meanings, unjust
results
● Golden Rule- Respects exact words of P’ment whilst solving LR absurdity. No definition of
“absurd result”, rarely used impossible to known when courts will use it over LR
● Mischief Rule- More likely to give just results as judge looks at gap in law, Law Com said it should
be the only used rule. Judicial law-making, uncertainty=legal advice difficult, more limited than
PA can only look at gap in old law
● Purposive Approach- just result, allows judges to respond to new technology, can look at
purpose of law. Judicial law-making, uncertainty=legal advice difficult,time consuming (Hansard),

Civil courts
1) Outline the Jurisdiction of the County Court
● Try maj. of civil cases, incl: contract, tort, land & some trust disputes
● Heard by circuit or district judge
● On rare occasion can use jury of 8-for defamation or false imprisonment cases

2) Outline the Jurisdiction of the High Court

● Can hear any civil case, heard by a high court single judge (more exp/multitrack)
● 3 divisions which specialise in certain case types:
❖ Queen Bench Division: Biggest, contract and tort cases where claimed amount is £100 k+ or
smaller claims with important point of law. Can use jury of 12 (e.g fraud). Contains
administrative Court (supervises lawfulness of conduct of public bodies)
❖ Chancery Division- Deals with disputes on companies/insolvency/trust property/mortgages
❖ Family division- deal with family/children related cases (adoption/wardship). Under Crime &
Courts Act 2013- maj cases dealt by FC, FD hear difficult/imp cases

3) Outline the pre-trial procedures for Civil Courts

● ADR: maj of cases settled before court
● Pre-Action Protocol- List of things to be done to prevent case from going to court, if don’t
follow = claim
● Choice of Court: Less than £10k/£1k PI = Small Claims Track, Less than £100k/£50k PI =
County Court, More=either court, more likely high court
● N1 Form: Claimant must fill out N1 form online or IRL, df can either pay full amount or
defend claim, court will allocate case to most suitable track

4) Outline the 3 track system used in Civil Courts

● If claim is defended, judge will assign it to most appropriate track:
❖ Small Claims Track (Under £10k/£1k PI)- Usually private, heard by District Judge.
Encouraged to self-represent, can't claim cost of lawyer even if they win. (2-3 hrs max)
❖ Fast Track (£10k-£25k)- Strict timetable stops waste of time/money, aim to hear within 30
weeks, typically Circuit Judge in open court, max 1 day
 ❖ Multi-Track (£25k-£50k)- Circuit Judge “manages” cases. Identify issues early on, encourage
ADR, fix timetables=aimed to keep cast cost low/fast/ not attend court. £50k=high court

5) Outline the Woolf Reforms

● Access to Justice 1999- Criticised Civil Court System. Cased delayed, expensive,
complicated.Said: Too adversarial, not promoting ADR, too much oral evidence emphasis,
too driven by lawyers
● Reforms: 3 track system, gave judges more case responsibility in case management,
simplifying court documents/procedures, more ADR
● BUT: ADR not used enough, cost increasing, courts are under-resourced, delay
● Lord Briggs 2016- further reform proposals. Out of hours private mediation service in county
court & online court should be set up
❖ District judges: Full time judges that used to be lawyers
❖ Circuit judges: More senior than district, normally previous district judges
❖ High court judges: Only high court cases, very senior, usually only sit in London

6) Outline the appeal route for Civil Courts (from County Court)-appeal to higher ranking judge
● Depends on level of judge hearing case
● Case heard by District Judge = Circuit Judge in Same County Court
● Case heard by Circuit Judge = High Court Judge
● Second Appeals = COA (civil division) under exceptional cases (appeal would raise important
point of law/compelling reason for court to hear case)

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Circuit Judge in County Court High Court Judge

Case heard by District Judge Case heard by Circuit Judge

7) Outline the appeal rout for Civil Courts (from High Court)- appeal to higher ranking court
● Usually goes to COA (civil division)
● Some cases can “leapfrog” directly to SC (must involve issues of national importance & SC
must give permission).
● Further Appeals- from COA to SC, but only if either court gives permission to appeal

Supreme Court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

High Court

8) Outline the Advantages & Disadvantages for using the Civil Courts
Advantages:
● Fair- Process is fair, everyone treated alike, impartial judge
 ● Legal expert- trial conducted by legal expert, with decision by judge whose a qualified
lawyer
● Enforcement- enforcement of court decision is easy, can be enforced via court (injunction)
● Appeal Process & Legal aid- however for civil cases it has been reduced
Disadvantages:
● Cost- cost of taking case to court often more than claimed, high court cost = very high
● Delay- preliminary stages, after the case is set for hearing=1 year. Total = years
● Complicated Process- pre-action protocols (compulsory steps), forms to be filled, set
procedures
Uncertainty-no guarantee of winning, loser = may have to pay other sides cost

Non-fatal offences
Assault
● Common law offence, charged under s39 of the Criminal Justice Act
AR for Assault:
● An Act by which a person causes another to apprehend immediate & unlawful violence
Act:
● Can be Act OR Words: Ireland, Smith, Constanza
Fear of Victim:
● Victim must apprehend immediate force: Lamb

● If force is impossible, not assault (i.e., if it's clear from words force won’t be used): Turbeville v
Savage BUT sometimes fear is so great, words won't cancel out Light
● Immediate=imminent Smith
MR for assault:
● Intention to cause another to fear immediate unlawful personal violence

● Recklessness as to whether such fear is caused (test=subjective, df must realise there is a risk to
their words/actions)

Assault cases-

● Constanza- 800 written letters, 2 threats of violence

● Ireland- silent phone calls count

● Smith- looking into woman’s window=assault, she was scared

● Lamb- Not assault, pointed loaded gun at V, V knew it wasn’t loaded

● Turbeville v Savage- "“If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language.” The justices of
assize were in town”
● Light- holding axe over wife’s head, “I would split your head open…police outside”-guilty, case-
dependant
● Smith- peering through window is assault (imminent threat)

Battery
● Common law offence, charged under s39 of the Criminal Justice Act
AR for Battery:

● “A battery is the application of any kind of unlawful force to another person”

● No violence required, just that df touches the victim unlawfully (clothes) Thomas. Collins v
Wilcock.
● Act can be indirect, as long as df still applies force (booby trap.) DPP v K.
● Can be omission, if it falls into categories (duty to act) Santa Bermudez
● Can be continuing act. Fagan
● Must be unlawful force, self-defence can be lawful (consent). Parents can scold their child if it
doesn't lead to injury. Children's Act 2004

MR for Battery:

● An intention to apply unlawful physical force to another

● Recklessness to whether the force is applied or not (df must realise risk/still take it)
Battery cases:

● Thomas- man touched bottom of women’s skirt, same as touching her

● Collins v Wilcock- police held women’s arm before arrest=guilty of battery

● DPP v K- acid in hand drier

● Santa Bermudez- failed to inform police officer of needle in pocket, officer stabbed, df=guilty

● Fagan- Df backed up car, upon officer’s order, rolled on foot, refused to move. Continual act of
battery

Assault occasioning ABH

● Charged under s47 of the Offences Against a Persons Act 1861

AR for ABH:

● Must prove assault/battery & this caused the ABH (result crime)

Result of Actual Bodily Harm:

● R v Miller “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim”
● T v DPP- loss of consciousness = ABH (so does bruising, grazes, scratches)
● Smith 2006- cutting hair amounts to ABH, if its substantial
● Burstow- psychiatric injury counts, not just mere emotions (fear/panic)

MR for ABH:
● MR for assault/battery (df needs to be subjectively reckless/ have intention, as to whether the
victim fears violence OR is subjected to force).
ABH cases:

● R v Miller “any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim”
● T v DPP- loss of consciousness = ABH (so does bruising, grazes, scratches). Attacked by
group=lost consciousness
● Smith- cutting hair amounts to ABH, if its substantial
● Burstow- psychiatric injury counts, not just mere emotions (fear/panic). Suffered depression
after attacked by ex-bf

Malicious Wounding/Inflicting GBH

● Charged under s20 of the Offences Against a Persons Act 1861
● Two Offences: Malicious winding or Inflicting GBH (max sentence 5 years)

AR for Malicious Wounding:

● “Wound” defined as “A cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin”- scratch doesn't count
● Internal cut sufficient (cheek), internal bleeding with no cut=insufficient. Eisenhower
● Wood- broken bone doesn't count unless skin is broken too

AR for inflicting GBH:

● Saunders- serious harm, does not need to say “really” (life threatening not required)

● Bollom- severity of injury calculated according to victim’s age

● Burstow- serious psychiatric injury can be GBH, “inflicting” only to prove that df’s actions led to
consequence of GBH

MR section 20:

● Intention/Recklessness as to causing SOME HARM. AR (serious harm)/MR (some

harm)Parmenter

S20 cases-

● Eisenhower- shotgun pellet caused under surface bleeding only, so not a wound

● Wood- broken collar bone is not a wound, unless skin too is broken

● Saunders- serious harm, does not need to say “really” (life threatening not required)

● Bollom- severity of injury calculated according to victim’s age.

● Burstow- serious psychiatric injury can be GBH, “inflicting” doesn’t require assault/battery
anymore, only to prove that df’s actions led to consequence of GBH (depression)
● Parmenter: threw 3-month-old in the air, caught it, still injured. Quashed conviction, hadn’t
foreseen some harm
Wounding/Causing GBH with intent
● Charged under s18 of the Offences Against a Persons Act 1861

● Indictable crime, max sentence=life

S18 AR:

● Wounding/causing GBH=same definition as s20

● S18 says “cause” rather than “inflict”, held to mean the same is Burstow

S18 MR:

● Intention to inflict serious harm, or resist lawful arrest Taylor

S18 cases:

● Taylor- conviction changed from s18 to s20, stab wounds, unclear if intention was serious or
some harm

ADR
1) Outline ADR
● Alternative Disputes Resolution- Solve disputes without civil court, private, cheap and
quicker
● Lord Woolf reforms of civil courts encourage ADR

2) Outline Negotiation as a form of ADR

● The process of trying to come to an agreement, directly between the 2 parties
● Resolve dispute yourself & should try to negotiate the whole way through
● Least formal, quick/cheap, can add solicitors but increase price

3) Evaluate Negotiation as a form of ADR

● Advantages:
❖ Cheap-No need for lawyers, can be conducted by parties themselves
❖ Can be used at any point-up to start of court date hearing
❖ Negotiated resolutions-can include agreement on future business deals
❖ Quick- parties can negotiate on own terms, don't need to wait for court date
● Disadvantages:
● May fail- other forms of ADR or court proceedings must be used
● Parties must cooperate- insufficient for bitter parties
● Could prolong-if there are unsuccessful attempts of negotiation

4) Outline Mediation as a form of ADR

● Using a neutral 3rd person (mediator), to help parties come to a compromised solution
● Mediator=“Facilitator”-doesn’t tell own views, instead attempts to establish common
ground, and come to an agreement (but parties remain in control)
● Important in family cases, must show MIAM before going to court/if parties willing to
cooperate (businesses negotiating contracts)
5) Outline Conciliation as a form of ADR
● Similar to mediation but conciliator plays a more active role
● Conciliator- discusses issues with both parties to reach a better understanding of each
other's position, suggests grounds for compromise, & possible basis of settlement

6) Evaluate mediation & conciliation as a form of ADR

● Advantages:
❖ Parties are in control- can withdraw from the process at any point, compromise can't be
reached without agreement of both parties
❖ Decision doesn't have to be strictly legal- likely to be based on common sense and
compromise
❖ Easier for future business deals- cant happen at court, only concerned with current dispute
❖ Avoid courtroom conflict- said with mediation everyone wins,maj cases solved via M&C
● Disadvantages:
❖ No Resolution Guarantee- may still have to go court, additional cost & delay
❖ Require skilled professional for success- M/C can bully weaker party
❖ Settlement in M/C is often lower than court settlements/other settlements
❖ May be more expensive- must pay 3rd party to M/

7) Outline Arbitration as a form of ADR

● Voluntary submission of a dispute to the judgement of a person other than a judge
(arbitrator)
● Scott v Avery clause: Some contracts can make parties agree to arbitration before any
dispute
● Governed by Arbitration Act 1996- courts will refuse to deal with cases which have this
clause
● 2 types:
● Paper arbitration – Make submission in writing and then submit it to the arbitrator for
decision
● Arbitration hearing – documents sent to arbitration, but before decision, there is a formal
“court-like” setting, details of hearing decided by parties (time/date), held in private
● The award- decision made by arbitrator binding, can be enforced by courts

8) Evaluate Arbitration as a form of ADR

● Advantages:
● Choose own arbitrator- decide whether matter needs to be dealt with legal/technical expert
● Time&place- decided by parties, can be arranged to suit both
● Privacy-no court publicity, can opt for informal,relaxed hearing unlike court
● The award/final decision is binding -can be enforced by the courts
● Quicker/cheaper- than using the courts
● Disadvantages:
● Unexpected legal case may arise- not suitable for non lawyer
● Expensive- if professional arbitror is used/opt for formal hearing (with witnesses/lawyers)
 ● Right of appeal limited
● Delay may be nearly as great as court- if professional arbitrator/lawyer is sued

OFFENCE AGAINST PROPERTY

Theft
● S1 Theft Act 1968

● D will be “…guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to

another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it…”-S1
AR of Theft
● S3: appropriates, S4: property, S5: belonging to another

Appropriates-S3:
● S3(1) ‘…any assumption [take over] by a person of the rights of an owner’-eg
selling, destroying, taking, lending
● Morris-assuming ANY right of owner=app., Ds switched labels to obtain lower
price
● Hinks- consent to appropriation = appropriation (gift accepting)

● Atakpu and Abrahams- can only occur at one point in time

Property-S4:
● S4(1) “… ‘property’ includes:

● “Personal Property” =moveable items Marshall- old tube tickets

● “Real Property” =land & buildings

● “Things in Action” something you have right to but can only be asserted legally
(cheque)
● “Other Intangible Property” rights that have no physical appearance but can be
stolen
● S4(3)(4)- wild mushrooms, plants, creatures not property, unless sold
commercially
Belonging to another-S5:
● S5(1) “…having possession or control of it…any proprietary right or interest…” R
v Hancock
● Turner-Owner usually has possession/control, doesn’t have to be lawful

● R v Basildon- can have possession/control without knowing (charity

shop/clothes)
● S5(3)- ensured property received under obligation still belongs to another.
Davidge v Bunnett- D spent housemates’ money for bills on shopping
● S5(4)- property received by another’s mistake, under “obligation to make
restoration” Attorney General's Reference 1983
MR for theft:
● S2: dishonestly, S6: Intention of Permanently Depriving

S2-Dishonestly (not defined, jury interpretation)

● S2 NOT dishonest if D appropriates property in the belief that:

● S2(1)(a)-he has the right to take it on behalf of himself or a third person (Holden)

● S2(1)(b)-he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation

● S2(1)(C)-The person to whom the property belonged could not be discovered by

taking reasonable steps
● Must show it’s a genuine belief, reasonableness doesn’t matter (Holden)

● Ghosh Test for Dishonesty- Was what was done dishonest according to the
standards of reasonable and honest people? (objective) Madeley
S6-Intention of Permanently Depriving
● Velumyl- took money from company safe, had no intention to replace it

● Lavender-D moved council door, treated them as his own, ITPD

● Easom-picked up handbag, put it back. Not guilty, no ITPD. Instead attempted

theft-conditional intention
● Borrowing not theft, unless borrowing loses its value (phone credit)

Theft cases
● Morris- Ds switched labels to obtain lower price
● Hinks- df coerced v into giving her money in the form of gifts, app.
 ● Atakpu & Abrahams- hired cars in Germany to sell in the UK, no app.
Occurred in Germany not UK
● Marshall-sold old tube tickets, property of London Underground
● R v Hancock- Crown has right over found treasure (Celtic coins)
● R v Turner- picked up car from repair shop without paying=belonged to
another
● Davidge v Bunnett- D spent housemates money for bills on shopping
● Holden-worker took used tyres from kiwi fit, under assumption he was
allowed to do so, not dishonest
● Maddeley-took items from shop by mistake (loss of memory), not dishonest

Robbery
● S8 Theft Act 1968

● “guilty of robbery if he steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so…
uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then
and there subjected to force.”

AR for Robbery:
● Theft & Force (in order to steal & before/at time of stealing)

● Zerei- theft must be completed

● Corcoran- force need to be only small, D snatched Vs bag=force

● B&R v DPP-implied threat=force

● R v Hale- dfs tied up v after stealing jewellery, app seen as continuing act thus
coincided with later force
MR for Robbery:
● Same as theft (dishonest & ITPD)

● + must intend to use force (or threat of it) to steal

Robbery cases
● Zerei- df pulled a knife on v to steal the car, abandoned it 1 mile later.
Robbery quashed, no ITPD
● Corcoran- d snatched bag from v, snatching = force
● B&R v DPP- implied threat=force
● R v Hale- dfs tied up v after stealing jewelry, app seen as continuing act thus
coincided with later force

Burglary:
● S9 Theft Act 1968

● Triable either way, max+14 years

● s.9(1)(a) D is guilty if he enters any building as a trespasser with the intent to

steal, inflict GBH or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.
● s.9(1)(b) D is guilty if having entered a building or part of it as a trespasser he
steals or attempts to steal anything or attempts to inflict GBH on any person in
the building.
AR for Burglary:
● “Entry”- Brown- “effective entry”, standing outside shop but reaching in

● “Building”- Stevens and Gourley “a structure of considerable size…permanent

or at least endure” Walkington
● “Trespasser”-going somewhere without permission/in excess Smith & Jones

MR for Burglary:
● Intention/Recklessness to trespass

● S9(1)(a): Intention to commit theft, GBH, unlawful damage

● S9(1)(b): Intention for theft/GBH (while committing offence, not at time of

entry)

Burglary cases
● Brown- standing outside shop/reaching in = effective entry
● Stevens & Gourley- definition of building
● Walkington- df trespassed, as counter of shop counted as “part of building”
for staff only
● Smith & Jones- father said son was not trespasser for entering his house,
COA disagreed “in excess of permission given to in him”

GENERAL DEFENCES
Duress
● Availabe for all offences except murder/attempted murder. R v Howe
● Df claims forced to act against will 2 types:
Duress by threats
● Df forced to commit a crime due to threats made. Threats of:
❖ Death or serious injury/cumulative threats considered (Valderrama)
❖ Threat doesn't have to be immediate, but carried out at moment of crime (Hudson & Taylor)
❖ Threat must make df commit that specific offence (Cole)
❖ Made to: Df/family/someone close & no safe avenue of escape (Gill)
● For successful defence, jury should consider 2 stage test (as in R v Graham)
 1.Was D compelled to act because they feared serious injury/death?-subjective
2.Would a sober person, of reasonable firmness, respond in the same way?-objective,
characteristics like age,disability/pregnancy taken into account (Bowen)-IQ doesn't count
● If df makes intoxicated mistake or self-induced duress (joining gang) = no defence (Hasan)
Duress of Circumstances
● Forced to act due to threats from circumstances not person
● Must be threat of physical harm Abdul Hussain-hijacked plane to UK, feared religious
persecution in Iraq, defence allowed, fear hanging over them
● Earlier cases mainly driving offences Willer-df drove on pavement to survive threat from
gang, reckless driving charge dropped, DOC
A03
Defence not Available for Murder: Weakness
● R v Howe- dfs under orders of Murray forced to strangle/kill 2 Vs, or same acts would
happen to them. Lord Halisham stated the normal person should be “capable of heroism”-
should sacrifice own life, then take another ? Very Unfair. Cant be taken into account due to
life sentences.
● Law Commission 1993 & 2006, stated should be available for murder. S18 allwoed, not
murder

No Allowances for IQ: Weakness

● Bowen- Df of low IQ obtained goods for men who threatened df& family with petrol bomb.
Can't use low IQ as characteristic when deciding if d is less able to resist threats. Unfair,
Bowen was less able to understand matters/being a woman seen as characteristic ?

Public Protection: Strength

● Hudson and Taylor-2 teenage girls committed perjury, failed to identify df in case, as
threatened by group with being cut up, defence allowed. Accepted the idea that police
protection is not fool-proof and so some people would be too scared to go to the police
● R v Hasan- df forced to commit burlary after threats made by women (who ran prostitution
agency) vioelnt durgdealing bf. Hassan associated with criminal activity, public protection !

Cumulative Threats Considered:Strength

● Valderama-df illegally imported cociane due to death thretas, threats to disoclsoe
homosexuality, finaical pressures. Defence allowed. Would have not been enough on their
own but threat of death allowed consideration of cumulative threats
Necessity
● Where circumstances force a person to act, to prevent a worse evil. “No alternative”-
argument, overlaps with duress of circumstances
● Criminal Courts reluctant to recognise it (Williams)
● Dudley & Stephens says it cant be used for murder
● Recognised in some civil cases (Re A), Re A ruled it can be potential defence to murder
● Considered in R v Shayler, courts laid out test for necessity & duress of circumstances:
1. Act must be done only to prevent an act of greater evil.
2. The evil must be directed towards the D or persons for whom he was responsible.
3. The act must be reasonable and proportionate to the evil avoided
A03
● Unclear how similar/different it is to DOC. R v Shayler-MI5 man disclosed secret
documents, conviction upheld, Ruled N&DOC basically the same.Laid out 3 part test for both
D.O.C & necessity
● Could be defence for murder? Re A- doctors sought declaration to operate on conjoined
twins, meaning one would die. Defence allowed. However this is a civil case but made
comment on murder, saying it could be a potential defence to murder, outside courts
jurisdiction ?
● Contradiction-Dudley & Stephens- sailors killed/ate cabin boy to survive. Here says
Necessity cant be defence to murder, but Re A said it could be a defence to
murder=confusing ?
● Not essential defence-Courts reluctant to recognise it Williams-homelessness held not to be
a reason for trespass or ‘no-one’s house would be safe’

Consent
● Df says there is no offence, as V consented to it. Not a defence to murder/serious injruy,
only some NOAPA. Must be real consent, V must:
❖ Comprehend nature of act, age/mental illness may affect this (G 2008)
❖ Not made mistake on identity of person, usually involves fraud over dfs qualifications
(Tabassum)
❖ Must have knowledge of relevant facts, eg HIV positive (Dica)
● Not possible to consent to harm from minor injuries, due to public interest (AGs Ref 1981)
● Implied consent to “ordinary jostlings of everyday life”-Wilson & Pringle
● Exceptions to the rule (AGS Ref 1981): “Games & Sport” if within rules of game, “lawful
chastisement”, “reasonable surgical interference”, [not] “dangerous exhibitions”
● Genuine mistaken belief that V consented, can be defence. Usually involves horseplay
(Jones)

A03
● Based on social utility, courts take into account what is in public interest. Ags Ref 1981- 2
men agreed to street fight to settle differences, consent not a defence, due to public
interest. “most fights will be unlawful regardless of consent.” Stops fights on streets which
would encourage violence
● Public interest problematic as morals come into play. R v Wilson- Husband branded initials
on wifes buttock, became infected. S47 dropped, consensual activity between consenting
adults = irrelevant. But not allowed in R v Brown where dfs charged with s20 after
homosexual sadomashism. Contradictory, homophobia ? Consensual activity should not be
courts worry ?
● Allows development of law-AG’s ref and Brown listed out exceptions where you can use
defence but in Wilson the court said that this should not be a definitive list- the law needs to
develop on a case by case basis. This is GOOD as allows law to develop as morals do
● Euthansisa/Assieted Sucide=murder, as V cant consent to own death. R v DPP, husband
helping wife consensually die is a criminal act. Outdated? Switzerland, consensual/terminally
ill?
 ● Protects V, where there is no genuine consent due to deception. Dica-df (HIV psoitve) had
sex with 2 Vs not dicosloing his condition. R v Tabassum-df pretended to be medically
qualified to examine women's breasts, no consent Vs were misled on qualifications
● Exceptions for sport- R v Barnes- footballer tackled V, resulting in leg injury, s20 quashed,
implied consent in sports

Self-Defence
● Includes the need to defend oneself/others/property
● CJIA 2008- Force must be “reasonable” not “disproportionate”, if danger is over when force
occurs = no defence (Martin)
● C&CA 2013- allows wider defence for householders/intruders. Allows “disproportionate
force” not “grossly disproportionate”. Df must believe V is trespasser/force used whilst V is
in building R v Hussain
● If df is acting under mistake, judged on facts they genuinely believed them to be (Williams)
● Where df is acting under drunken mistake, can't use defence
● Pre-emptive strike- not necessary to wait until you're attacked to act in self defence. AGs Ref
1984
● Martin =current law. Was it necessary to use force ?=sub. Was force used reasonable =obj.

A03
● CJIA 2008- allows for reasonable force to protect oneself. Martin df shot 2 burglars in
farmhouse, evidence showed they were leaving when df shot them = excessive
● CJIA 2008- says df cannot rely on mistaken belief to use force when voluntarily intoxicated,
this is for public protection
● Protects those who made a genuine mistaken belief- R v Williams- df thought he witnessed
fight, intervened and injured man, self defence allowed. The Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008 backed this up as it says that you should refer to the circumstances as
the D believed them to be. Fair for df, unfair on victim ?
● C&CA 2013- allows householders to protect themselves. Hussain-D chased burglars away
from house then beat one up, force was grossly disproportionate. However, allows
householders to get away with more than someone is street/shop=unfair?
● Martin states characteristics of df=irrelevant (always saw greater force than others), unfair,
in Oye- df attacked police after being rushed by “evil spirits”, mental illness not taken into
account in objective tests. COA held that the CJIA 2008 did NOT change anything so the
decision from Martin is still current law.

Attempt
● Definition: S1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981: “With intent to commit an offence, a person does
an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence”
Actus Reus:
● Act must be “more than merely preparatory”, definition of MTMP:
● R v Gullefer- means the df must have “embarked on the crime proper”
● R v Geddes- the df must be trying to commit the full offence. 2 qs: Had the accused moved from
planning/preparation to execution/implementation? Had the accused done an act showing he
was trying to commit the full offence…or equipping himself to do so?
● R v Jones- dont have to do the last act (safety catch on gun still on) before the crime proper
Mens Rea of Attempt:
● Df must have intention for full offence. R v Easom-no ITPD.
● Recklessness not normally sufficient for AC- R v Millar & Vernon
● BUT recklessness is sufficient as to part of the offence, where there is intention for another part.
AGs Ref 1994
● Attempted murder: must prove intention to kill, not cause GBH (serious harm). R v Whybrow

● S1(2)(3) of the CAA 1981-means df is guilty even if full offence is legally/physically impossible. R v
Shivpuri

Cases
● R v Gullefer- jumped on dograce track to reclaim bet money, attempted theft quashed, hadn't
gone to betting point AND asked for money back
● R v Geddes-df in boys toilet with knife, rope tape. Attempted false imprisonment quashed,
hadn't moved from planning to execution & only got ready to commit full offence
● R v Jones- df got in Vs car pointing gun, V threw gun away, attempted murder upheld. Although
safety catch still on, getting in Vs car/pointing gun is sufficient for AC
● R v Easom- rummaged through bag, nothing worth stealing, put it down. No ITPD
● R v Miller & Vernon-dfs pushed against wooden stand on football ground, attempt criminal
damage quashed, recklessness not sufficient for MR
● AGs ref 1994-df threw petrol bomb to car with 4 men, attmep of arson/endanger life. Intended
to damage property, reckless as to whether life was endangered
● R v Whybrow- df wired wife bath, caused electric shock, attempted murder to quash, only had
itnention to cuase GBH
● R v Shivpuri- df agreed to receive suitcase of illegal drugs, contained nothing illegal, attempt of
dealing prohibited drugs upheld

Human Rights

Article 5
● Article 5 is the “Right to liberty and Security of a person”. It lays down the conditions
for lawful arrests and detentions
● Qualified right- can be breached in some scenarios
● Article 5, Section 1: “Everyone has the right to liberty...only be deprived when”
A) Lawful under English Law
B)Arrest under a warrant, Non-payment of a fine, Contempt of court, Breach of a bail
condition
C) Allows lawful arrest or detention of a person suspected of having committed an
offence Shimovolos v Russia
D) Allows detention of minor for educational supervision or to come before a court
E) Prevention of infectious diseases, Persons of unsound mind, Alcoholics, Drug
addicts, Vagrants (homeless)
F) Illegal immigrants
● Article 5, covered by PACE act, restricts powers of the police
2)To allow a person to know why they have been arrested in a language they
understand
3) Right to be brought promptly before a judge/judicial power
Right to be tried within a reasonable time Brogan v UK
Right to release on bail, except when custody is justified (remand)
4) The right to access a court and to challenge the detention
5)Everyone who is the victim of unlawful arrest/detention has the right to
compensation
● R v Samuel- Everyone should have access to legal advice, after being charged
● Mengesha v MPC-Kettling lawful under article 5, BUT BREACH OF ART 5 as police
required demonstrators to be filmed as condition of leaving the kettle
● Stop and Search- don’t conflict with art 5, reason for search must be given under PACE
Act 1984
● Roberts v CPM - no breach of art. 5 behaviour suggested she was carrying weapon, she
also failed to co-operate and gave false name
● Confinement is deprivation of liberty when:
a) Objectively a person has been detained for a period of time
b) The detainee has not consented to detention- Cheshire West v Chester Council
c) Reason for confinement set by state not court- Guzzardi v Italy
● TPIM- probably in breach of art 5, restricts terrorist suspects. Includes electronic tagging
Stop & Search (covered in Article 5)
● Police Powers to stop & search under s 1 & 2 of the PACE Act/Code of Practice A
● Grounds for arrest must exist prior to stopping suspect
● Power to search vehicles/persons & detain them for search. Used to look for
stolen/prohibited items. Must have reasonable grounds to suspect item
● No general duty to answer questions prior to arrest. Rice v Connoly Roberts v CPM
● S2 PACE, Search unlawful unless officer gives Name, Number, Station & Reason for
search
● S3 PACE, Full record should be made of the search
● S60 of CJ&POA 1994, authorises blanket search in area for reasonable belief of serious
violence
● S44 of TA 2000, allows senior officer to make random stops/searches in an area for a
specified period of time Gillan & Quinton v UK
Cases: Article 5
● Shimovolos v Russia- Shimovolos arrested & surveillance, BREACH OF ART 5- didn’t
commit offence
● Brogan v UK- Held for 5 days, BREACH OF ART 5, hearing wasn’t consistent with idea of
promptness
● R v Samuel- Offered legal advice after confession, breach of art 5

● Mengesha v MPC-Kettling lawful under article 5, BUT BREACH OF ART 5 as police

required demonstrators to be filmed as condition of leaving the kettle
● Roberts v CPM - stop & search, no breach of art. 5 behaviour suggested she was carrying
weapon, she also failed to co-operate and gave false name
● Guzzardi v Italy- Suspected criminal sent to isolated island, with restrictions. BREACH OF
ART 5- set by STATE not COURT
● Cheshire West v Chester Council- Bodysuit put backward to stop ingestion of pad,
BREACH OF ART 5- patient already under constant supervision

Stop & Search

● Rice v Connoly- acted suspiciously whilst in area for breakings, refused to give
name/address. No duty to answer questions
● Roberts v CPM - stop & search, no breach of art. 5 behaviour suggested she was carrying
weapon, she also failed to co-operate and gave false name
● Gillan & Quinton v UK- random search under S44 TA unlawful, led to provision S47
must be reasonable belief act of terrorism would occur

Article 6
● Article 6 is the “Right to Fair Trial”
● It protects citizens from abuse of power by the State, and permits no restrictions
● Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a) To be informed promptly in a language they understand of the nature of the
accusations
b) Adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence
c) To defend himself through legal assistance or be given it free if justice requires
d) To examine witnesses against him…and examination of witnesses on his behalf
e) To have free assistance of an interpreter if he can’t understand/speak the language
in court
● No absolute right to legal representation, but if persons liberty is at stake state should
pay (Ibrahim v UK)
● Hearing must take place in reasonable time Brogan v UK
● Cases need to be heard orally in public, but if qualified in interest of children / national
security (B & P v UK)
● Right to have case heard/sue- Osman v UK
● Right to fair trial seems to include:
1) Equality of arms (Steel & Morris v UK)
2) Presumption of innocence
● Child defendants should not be subject to intimidation, humiliation or distress
● All steps must be taken to allow the child to take part in the case & understand
proceedings
● A child has the right to be heard but no right to give evidence
● T & V v UK
Cases- article 6
● Ibrahim v UK- Arrested with connection to London bombings, refused legal assistance.
NO BREACH OF ART 6, qualified right- terrorism
● Brogan v UK- Held for 5 days, BREACH OF ART 5, hearing wasn’t consistent with idea of
promptness
● B & P v UK- Family cases held in private, clmnt said this breached art 6. NO BREACH OF
ART 6- family cases & national security should be held in private
● Osman v UK- Police sued for failing to protect family from harassment, police claimed
blanket immunity. BREACH OF ART 6- no blanket immunity
● Steel & Morris v UK- Sued for libel of McDonalds, McDonalds spent £10 mil on legal
cost. BREACH OF ART 6- inequality of arms
● T & V v UK- 2 boys tried for murder; names disclosed to press. BREACH OF ART 6

Article 8
● Right to respect for Private and Family life
● Qualified right- lawful situations when state can limit these in proportion to risk
(national security, public safety)
● “Everyone” means individuals and businesses
● “Respect” means the state must not interfere with these rights, and must protect them-
Sheffield v Horsham
● 4 main areas protected: Private life, Family Life, Home, Correspondence
● Private Life. Includes: physical & psychological integrity of a person, personal data,
reputation, names and photos. Halford v UK
● Not same as privacy, Art 8 not for private disputes. Difficulty arises when public
interests invade privacy. Campbell v MGN
● Family Life- “Right to enjoy family life without interference from the state”. Right to live
with family, or regular contact, between unmarried couple/adoptive family.
● Child’s welfare is paramount- Johannsen v Norway
● Legitimate marriages protected, not sham ones where there’s no insurmountable
barrier. Agyarko & Ikuga vs Sec State Home Dept
● Home- “Right to enjoy your existing home peacefully” = not a right to a house
● Public authority can’t stop you entering home/enter without reason
● Person doesn’t have to own property for it to be a home- Khatun v UK
● Art 8 protects those who rent from local authority, not private sector. McDonald v
McDonald
● Correspondence- “The right to uninterrupted and uncensored communications with
others”
● Covers: Phone calls, letters, texts, emails etc… Barbulescu v Romania
● For security reasons there are limitations (CCTV)
● Investigatory Powers Act 2016- Allows wide range of tools for snooping + hacking.
Probably breach of art 8
Cases
Article 8

● Sheffield v Horsham- UK criticised for law surrounding gender reassignment, in return

passed Gender Reassignment Act 2004
● Halford v UK- Interception of an employee’s calls in private exchange against art 8

● Campbell v MGN- Naomi Campbell photographed coming out drugs meeting, BREACH
OF ART 8- no public interest
● Johansen v Norway- Child’s natural parents opposed adoption, BREACH OF ART 8-
child’s best interests
● Agyarko & Ikuga vs Sec of State- Outstayed visa, claimed breach of family life as they
were arrived to British citizens, NO BREACH no insurmountable obstacle
● Khatun v UK- applicants were council tenants, art 8 applied, person doesn’t have to own
property
● McDonald v McDonald- parents couldn’t pay daughters mortgage, NO BREACH OF ART
8, doesn’t prevent against renting for private sectors
● Barbulescu v Romania- Company investigated Mr B’s private yahoo messenger, also
dealing with client enquiries, BREACH OF ART 8
Article 10
● Freedom of Expression
● Article 10.1 covers freedom to hold opinions (no indoctrination of citizens/indiv can't be
forced to communicate opinion), freedom to impart information/ideas (M.O.P for state
depending on culture), freedom to receive information & ideas
● Article 10.2 justifies state interference
● 3 types of expressions are protected:
A) Freedom of the Press
● Commercial Expression: to have free expression, elements of a free press must be
protected (journalist/sources). Goodwin v UK
B) Artistic Expression
● Includes right to “offend,shock and disturb”. Handyside v UK
● State is allowed “margin of appreciation”, discretion on when expression has gone too
far for state/culture. Otto-Preminger Institut v Austria
● Includes hate speech/incitement of hatred. Garaudy v France- M.O.P can be applied,
under 10.2 (prevention of disorder/crime)
C) Political Expression
● Free political debate, democratic elections cant occur without this freedom
● Protects civil/public interest expression, where expression raises matters of legitimate
public concern. Steel & Morris v UK
Freedom to Receive Information & Impart Ideas
● Right to gather/seek info. Use all lawful sources to do this (TV, books)
● Media can impart this info, no general obligation on state to provide info. Guerra v Italy
● Everyone can access info gathered by public sector organisations. Freedom to receive
● info/ideas can’t be interfered with by public authority. Mayor Helsinki v Hungary
● Axel v Springer- set out 6 criterias to balance Article 8 & 10
● Does info contribute to debate of public interest ? The Notoriety of the person
concerned. The prior conduct of the person concerned. The method/accuracy of
obtaining info. The consequences of publication. The severity of the sanction imposed
Cases
● Goodwin v UK- Goodwin ordered to disclose journalist who wanted to remain
anonymous, breach of art 10
● Handyside v UK- Convicted for producing ponogrpahy book for children, no breach of
art 10, margin of appreciation. But ECtHR, said “right to offend,shock,disturb”
● Otto-Preminger Institut v Austria-Tried to show film offending Catholicims, authorities
banned it, no breach, in M.O.A
● Garaudy v France- Wrote book denying holocuast, imprisoned, no breach, under 10.2
(Public safety & prevention of disorder/crime)
● Steel & Morris v UK- Had right to express concerns over poor practises in McDonalds
● Guerra v Italy- Applicant lived near chemical factory, demanded right to receive info. No
breach, no obligation to disseminate all info
● Mayor Helsinki v Hungary- refusal to disclose to NGO the police appointment of public
defence counsel violated NGO’s right to expression
● Axel v Springer- Newspaper published photos of famous actor using drugs, article 8
breached not article 10