OCR A-Level Law - Criminal Law cases ) (Solved Questions 100% VERIFIED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS)
6 views 0 purchase
Course
OCR A-Level Law - Criminal Law cases
Institution
OCR A-Level Law - Criminal Law Cases
R v Raheem Ul Nasir ANS:Example of Aggravating Factor - victims were Asian
R v Ex Parte Brownlow ANS:Legality of police and wider background checks questioned
R v Mason ANS:Legality of police and wider background checks - inquiry confirmed by Court of Appeal
R v Ponting ANS:Juries
Jury refusing...
R v Raheem Ul Nasir ANS:Example of Aggravating Factor - victims were Asian
R v Ex Parte Brownlow ANS:Legality of police and wider background checks questioned
R v Mason ANS:Legality of police and wider background checks - inquiry confirmed by Court of Appeal
R v Ponting ANS:Juries
Jury refusing to convict despite evidence
R v Randle and Pottle ANS:Juries
Jury failing to convict the defendants despite pleading guilty; 25-year difference between crime and trial
R v Young ANS:Juries
Jury not giving a reason for their decision; used a Ouija board
Sander v UK ANS:Juries
Jury failed to be unbiased; jurors made racist jokes about the defendant, but the case was allowed to
continue
R v Taylor and Taylor ANS:Juries
Jury was influenced by media coverage of the case; appeal was allowed
Hill v Baxter ANS:If there is no control, there is no actus reus; actus reus must be voluntary
Leicester v Pearson ANS:Shunt involved - no actus reus, as the force involved was involuntary
R v Larsonneur ANS:Had travelled on an expired visa to Ireland; state of affairs crime
R v Winzar ANS:Arrested for being drunk (disorderly) on the highway; state of affairs crime
R v Pittwood ANS:Duty of Care
Failure to fulfil contractual duty, causing a collision
R v Stone and Dobinson ANS:Duty of Care
Failure to look after sister who was living with them; voluntary assumption of responsibility
R v Dytham ANS:Duty of Care
,Defendant was a police officer on duty; ignored an ongoing fight and announced that he was going off-
duty; public duty
R v Gibbins and Proctor ANS:Duty of Care
A 7-year-old girl died of starvation after her parents failed to feed her; duty through relationship
R v Miller ANS:Duty of Care
Defendant falls asleep and sets mattress on fire, causing the building to burn and creating a dangerous
situation
R v White ANS:Factual Causation
No factual cause of the consequence - mother's drink was poisoned, but she died of a heart attack
R v Pagett ANS:Factual Causation
Factual cause of the consequence - Pagett endangered his girlfriend by dragging her into the line of
fire/dangerous situation
R v Kimsey ANS:Factual Causation
Defendant's encouraging during the race for her to go faster counts as a significant contribution towards
her death
R v Hughes ANS:Factual Causation
Defendant was originally convicted for the death of the victim, as the defendant should not have been
on the road to cause the collision. However, this was overturned, as it was later argued that it could
have happened with anyone, including someone who had a license
R v Benge ANS:Factual Causation
Failure to act/negligence of others - defendant did not lay the new tracks in time and a train crashed,
argued that the flagman had not gone far enough up the track
R v Cheshire ANS:Factual Causation/Novus Actus Interveniens
The cause of death was not independent of the original act (third parties) - defendant's shooting was the
cause of the outcome, despite the operation
R v Jordan ANS:Novus Actus Interveniens
Medical treatment was potent in causing the outcome, as the cause of his death was a result of the poor
treatment (third parties) - made the situation worse
R v Malcherek ANS:Novus Actus Interveniens
, Doctor switching off life support does not break the chain (third party) - situation did not get any worse,
patient was brain dead and was not recovering (arguably already dead)
R v Roberts ANS:Novus Actus Interveniens
Victim's own act of jumping from the car after being assaulted by the driver broke the chain of
causation, as the victim's act was reasonably forseeable
R v Williams ANS:Novus Actus Interveniens
Victim's own act of jumping from the car after believing he was going to be robbed was not foreseeable;
it was deemed "daft"
R v Blaue ANS:Thin Skull Rule
Personal characteristics that render the victim more susceptible to the defendant's acts are immaterial;
refusal to accept a blood transfusion was irrelevant, the defendant was still responsible for the death
R v Mohan ANS:Direct Intention
The defendant had a direct intention for the result to occur
R v Moloney ANS:Direct Intention
There was not "a true desire to bring about the consequence"
Chandler v DPP ANS:Intention
Motive is irrelevant if the intention is present - broke into military base to protest against it
R v Woollin ANS:Indirect Intention
The defendant foresaw that the consequence of his act was virtually certain
R v Hancock and Shankland ANS:Intention
The more likely an outcome is to happen, the stronger the evidence for intention - conviction was
quashed on appeal due to misdirection
R v Cunningham ANS:Recklessness
'The defendant has foreseen that the particular harm might be done, and yet goes on to take the risk of
it'
DPP v K ANS:Recklessness
Acid in a hand dryer. Held, for a battery, the application of force need not be direct
R v Latimer ANS:Mens Rea
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller johnlynnk262. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.70. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
