Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

13 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
R v Williams (Gladstone) 1884
it was establishd tht D commits no offence if d force used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them t b. I
The D. Punched the V mistakenly believing tht the V was unlawfully assaulting another. Ws convicted of assault occasioning ABH and appealed against the direction tht his honest belief tht he ws acting lawfully ws only relevant if basd on reasonable grounds. Whether this was a misdirection depended on whether the word «unlawful» was a matter of defence or part of the actus reus of d offence. Appeal allowed. D hd made a mistake about an element appearing in the actus reus of the crime chargd.
R v Beckford 1987
honest belief in danger even if it was unreasonable. Pre-emptive strike is allowed. ????????
R v Martin 2002
shot 2 intruders, 1 killed, 1 seriously injured - guilty f M-ter - diminished responsibility
decided that psychiatric evidence that D would have perceived the circumstance as being a greater threat than a normal person was not admissible. Physical characteristics are.
R v Bird 1985
D was convicted of wounding. Her evidence was that, at the time, she was being held by the V against the wall and struck back at him in self-defence. She appealed against the direction that it was necessary that she demonstrated an unwillingness to fight before striking. Appeal allowed.
R v Hussey 1924
no longer thought to be correct. When can it be reasonable to kill in defence of property?
Re A (children) (conjoined twins:surgical separation)
separate- one capable of independent existence-but-operation will kill another-otherwise-both die. parents appealed-dismissed. Brooke LJ:there r 3 necessary requirements -
the act is needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil;
no more should b dn than is reasonably necessary for d purpose t b achieved;
the evil avoided mst nt b disproportionate to d evil avoided.
Le Brun 1992
Appelant had an argument with his wife-street-struck her w/o intent t do serious harm-she fell unconscious. Moved her-head hit d pavement-died. Q-n: accidently dropped her or with intent - same when 1st struck her - Manslaughter. Force and the eventual act causing death were part of the same sequence of events
R v Thabo Meli and Others 1954
plan-took a man-gave beer-struck him over his head. Believed he ws dead-took body/rolled over a low cliff, dressing up d scene t look like an accident. Man wsnt dead. Final cause of his death-that left unconscious. Appelants argued-1st accompanied by mens rea, not cause of d.; 2nd wsnt accompanied. Appeal dismissed.
R v Clegg 1995
Br. soldier on night shift-another stopped car-car accelerated-sm1 shouted t stop - A and his colleagues opened fire. Driver and rear-seated passenger killed. Passenger-hit in d back! Murder Car had passed when 4 shot. 3 first - self-defence. CA dismissed an appeal
R v Rose (1884)
D. who had shot dead his father when he was launching a murderous attack on the defendant's mother, acquitted of murder-self-defence.
R v O'Grady [1987]
D woke up drunk-drunk friend hitting him. Blows- returned to sleep. friend dead. D was convicted of M-Ter and appealed, defence of self-defence in the circumstances as he mistakenly believed them to be. CA dismissed the appeal: a mistake arising from voluntary intoxication cd never b relied on in putting forward a defence, whatever the crime.
R v O'Connor [1991]
D.while drunk head-butted his victim/died.- He thought he was acting in self-defence. Convicted of murder and appealed on the grounds that his mistaken belief was relevant. CA-flwg O'Grady, a drunken mistake as to the need for self-defensive action - shld b ignored by the jury.
R v Hatton 2005
a person whose mistaken apprehension of an attack is caused by self induced intoxication cannot plead self defence no matter what the charge is. Mr Hatton was convicted of murder.