• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/32

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

32 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Collister v Warhurst
Held: A demand can be implied, as well as express.
Thorne v MTA
Held: Menace has a wide meaning. It can include threats of any action detrimental or unpleasant to the person addressed.
R v Clear
Held: Something is a menace if it is an influence on an ordinary person's mind or makes them apprehensive.
R v Harry
Held: Not a menace if no-one would be intimidated.
R v Garwood
Held: There can be a menace where an ordinary person would not be affected but the victim would be affected.
R v Lambert
Held: The test for 'unwarranted demand' is subjective.
R v Harvey
Held: The demand won't ever be proper and warranted if the means used are illegal. 'proper means' provides objectivity for the courts to decide the claim.
R v Robinson
Held: There can be no robbery without a theft.
Corcoran v Anderton
Facts: Didn't have control over the handbag as the woman screamed and held on.

Held: This was irrelevant. They had still assumed sufficient control that amounted to appropriation.
R v Dawson & James
Facts: A mere nudge was deemed sufficient force.

Held: No physical violence is necessary.
R v DPP
Held: All that is required is the expectation of force. No fear is necessary.
R v Clouden
Held: Force can be applied indirectly through an object.
R v Taylor
Facts: The threat was written on a note and not spoken aloud. Handed to the clerk who was behind a glass partition.

Held: There was no fear for the cashier's own safety and no fear of anyone else in the post office. No robbery.
R v Donoghy & Marshall
Facts: Threatened cabbie with a gun, then stole $22 but did not repeat the threat.

Held: It is for the jury to decide whether the threat of force is still operating.
R v Collins
Facts: Man climbed up a ladder and the girl, assuming he was her boyfriend, invited him in.

Held: Was he exceeding permission as a trespasser?
R v Ryan
Held: 'Entry' is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Based on evidence.
Old Common Law Position on 'Entry'
- Any part of the body, however small.
Stevens v Gourley
Held: Must be a structure of considerable size and intended to endure for some time.
B&S v Leathley/Norfolk Constabulary
Contrasting cases.

B&S: Walk in freezer in place for 3 years = building.

Norfolk: Storage lorry on wheels held not to be a building.
R v Walkington
Held: A counter area on wheels was held to be 'part' of a building.
R v Jones & Smith
Held: Boy breaking into his father's house was still exceeding permission, despite the fact he thought he had a right to be there.
Barker v R
Held: A man was exceeding permission when he sold all the furniture in the house, as he only had permission to feed the cat.
A-G's Reference (No 1&2 1979)
Held: It doesn't matter is the intention cannot be carried out, as long as you have the MR for burglary on entry.
R v Jenkins
Held: You do not necessarily need the MR for GBH or Theft to be guilty of a s9(1)(b) offence.
R v Laing
Held: Whatever the offence, D must be a trespasser on entry to be guilty of s9(1)(a).
R v O'Leary
Held: You must have the prohibited item on you at the time you commit burglary for it to be aggravated. s9(1)(a).
R v Stones
Held: Intention to use the item in the burglary is not required. You only have to prove intention if it would not normally be a weapon of offence.
R v Kelly
Held: Used a screwdriver to break into a house. Once inside, she then stabbed the house owner with it and stole a TV, making it an aggravated burglary. Intention is not essential.
R v Savage/R v Parmenter
Held: MR for a s20 OAPA 1861 is satisfied if the defendant be reckless as to causing 'some harm'. Bring in (R v Jenkins).
R v Saunders
Held: MR for a s18 OAPA 1861 is that D intends 'serious harm'
Test for Legal Causation
R v Pagett/R v Smith - Is D an operating and substantial cause of the victim's injuries?
Test for Factual Causation
R v White - The 'But for' test. But for D's actions, would the victim have suffered the injuries?