Paper 1

Acts + Cases

Entick v Carrington

Defendant’s warrant was issued by the Home Secretary who did not have the authority to issue warrants hence they were deemed trespassers. Relevance: Lay personnel (magistrates) + Rule of Law

Egerton v Harding

Customary to fence land for cattle herding. Relevance: Types of Law (customs)

Windsor Corporation v Mellor

Corporation was not allowed to build on land after locals proved that there was a tradition that allowed them to use the land for sports. Relevance: Type of Law (customs)

R v Samuel

evidence considered inadmissible after D was denied the right to a solicitor. Relevance: Advantage of adversarial system (strict rules of evidence), Police powers (rights of detained)

R v Inglis

D murdered her son to end his suffering but was found guilty because mercy killing is illegal. Relevance: Moral rule

R v Crocker

D suffocated wife with a pillow at her insistence because she was terminally ill and suffered from so much pain: Relevance: Moral rule

Punishment of Incest Act 1908 and Sexual Offences Act 2003

It criminalized incest. Relevance: Moral rule (it became a legal rule)

Jackson v Horizon Holidays

D was able to claim damages for his entire family even though he was the only one that entered into a contract with the hotel. Relevance: Substantive Justice

Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel

D could not rely on exclusion clause because it was only brought to claimant’s attention after contract has ended. Relevance: Substantive Justice

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO)

removed availability of legal aid for social welfare situations. Relevance: Adversarial system, Substantive justice, Law commission (failed consolidation)

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

transferred use of Practice Statement from HoL to SC. Devolution of the role of the Lord Chancellor. Relevance: Judicial Precedent, Public Bill

Abortion Act 1967

legalized abortion in the UK. Relevance: Private member’s bill

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

imperfect legislation, type of dog was used instead of breed. Relevance: Parliamentary Law Making (thorough)

Parliamentary Act 1911 and 1949

gave HOC the power to pass any bill without HoL approval as long as on year has elapsed and it is done in two consecutive seatings. Relevance: Parliamentary Law Making (democracy)

Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011

set out that the government is elected once every 5 years. Relevance: Parliamentary Law making (democracy)

R v The Secretary of State on Exiting the European Union

wanted to exit the European Union without passing an Act of Parliament. This would overrule the European Communities Act 1972 which gave EU law supremacy over UK law. Relevance: Parliamentary Supremancy

Human Rights Act 1998

judges should interpret the law compatibly to the conventional human rights set out in S1 of the act. If the law is incompatible, the judge can issue a remedial order for Parliament to ammend the law so he can interpret the law compatibly. Relevance: Parliamentary Supremacy

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza

D argued that he was considered a statutory tenant as he was the spouse of the deceased. However, they were a gay couple and the Rent Act 1977 wording could not be interpreted to include a gay couple. Remedial order was issued and the Rent Act 1977 was ammended. Relevance: Parliamentary Supremacy

B and L v UK

She wanted to marry her divorced father-in-law however Marriage Act 1949 forbid a marriage between the in law and their child’s spouse. Remedial order was issued. Relevance: Parliamentary Supremacy

Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Act 1998

passed certain powers of Parliament to the Parliament of Scotland and Wales. Relevance: Parliamentary Supremacy

Protection of Children Act 1978

Mary Whitehouse ran an anti porn campaign and succeeded in getting an Act passed. Relevance: Influences of Parliament

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1977

Snowdrop was a pressure group created by a group of families that lose their children in a school shooting and ran on banning firearms. After they had succeeded, they disbanded. Relevance: Influences of Parliament

Powers of Criminal Court Sentencing Act 2000 consolidated to Criminal Justice and Court and Services Act 2000 and then Criminal Justice Act 2003

Relevance: Law commmission (failed consolidation)

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015

made it an offence for jurors to use their phone in court. Relevance: lay personnel (jurors), law commission (success)

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

gives authority to make codes for police powers, set out police powers. Relevance: Delegated legislation (statutory instrument and Parent Act), Police Powers

Coronavirus Act 2020

gave government the right to enact laws to combat coronavirus. Relevance: delegated legislation (statutory instrument)

Legislative and Reform Regulatory Act 2006 (LARRA)

set out Super Affirmative Resolution, allows a Minister to ammend an Act of Parliament to remove a burder but he has to consider: Representation, Resolution and Recommendation of either houses of Parliament. Relevance: Delegated Legislation (controls)

Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Training Board v Mushroom Aylesbury Ltd

Parent Act required them to consult with experts but they did not hence procedural ultra vires and Parent Act control. Relevance: Delegated legislation (controls)

R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment

Education Act 1996 did not grant power for the delegated legislation to state out how to make appraisal and the raise for teachers. Parent Act only gave them 4 days for consultation. Relevance: Delegated legislation (controls, Substantive and Procedural Ultra Vires)

AG v Fulhan Corporation

Authority made commercial laundry stores for people to wash their clothes at. Parent Act did not give them the power to do so. Relevance: Delegated Legislation (controls, Substantive Ultra Vires)

Strictlands v Hayes Borough Council

Bylaw prevent reciting, singing or use of obscene songs, it covered action in private property as well. Relevance: Delegated Legislation (controls, Unreasonableness)

Nash v Finlay

Woman arrested for annoying other people. ‘Annoying’ was too vague a term. Relevance: Delegated Legislation (controls, Ambiguity)

Food Protection (Emergency Provisions) Order 1986

came into effect less than 2 hrs after it was laid before Parliament. Relevance: Delegated Legislation (speed)

Road Traffic Act 1972 now replaced by Road Traffic Act 1977

left the exact details of the types of helmets allowed up to the Home Secretary to handle. Relevance: Delegated Legislation (saving time)

Air Navigation Order 1995

140 pages of highly technical knowledge, replacd quickly by Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995 to remedy defects and technical errors. Relevance: Delegated Legislation

Whiteley v Chappell

offence to impersonate anyone that is entitled to vote but D impersonated a dead person who is technically not entitled to vote. Relevance: Literal Rule

Fisher v Bell

Shopkeeper displayed flick knife at the window and it was an offence to sell those kinds of knife but shopkeeper argued that it was technically the customer who made an offer to buy. Relevance: Literal Rule

Re Sigworth

Son had murdered his mother but according to law, next of kin inherits, absurd outcome so judge applied Golden Rule instead. Relevance: Golden Rule

Adler v George

D claimed that he was not in the vicinity of the area because he was inside so he was not guilty, absurd so judge applied Golden Rule. Relevance: Golden Rule

Smith v Hughes

Prostitutes were soliciting by the window however law only prevented soliciting on the streets so it was technically legal. Judge applied Mischief Rule and said that the purpose of that law was to allow people to walk through streets undisturbed. Relevance: Mischief Rule

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

Nurse administered abortion drug but by law only doctors were allowed to do so. CA ruled them guilty using literal rule but HOL overruled with Mischief Rule stating that the purpose of the law was to prevent backstreet abortions. Relevance: Mischief Rule

Pepper v Hart

ruled that Hansard is allowed to be used to if a) Legislation is ambigious; b) Statement in Hansard resolve the ambiguity; c) Statement in Hansard is clear. Relevance: Purposive Approach

R v Registrar General exp Smith

Under s51 of the Adoption Act 1976, a person can receive information about their biological parents once they reach the age of 18, however, the person in question was a serial killer and has been testified to be a risk to his birth mother so the court denied his request saying that Parliament must not have intended for such a serious crime to occur. Relevance: Purposive Approach

Quintaville

Pro life argued that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority did not have the right to research cloning even though they were given the right to research embryos. Embryos were defined to be fertilised but cloned embryos were not fertilised. Court ruled that cloned embryos fell under the statute. Relevance: Purposive Approach

Powell v Kempton Park

D was charged with keeping a “house, office, room or other place for betting” but defendant ran an outdoor betting ring so Court ruled that he was not guilty because all the other words in the Act were indoor places. Relevance: Rules of Language (Edjusdem generis)

Tempest v Kilner

Statute required a contract to be written up for the sale of good, wares and merchandise worth more than £10. Court ruled that stocks and shares did not count because they were not mentioned. Relevance: Rules of Language (Expressio unius est exclusion alterius)

Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere

Section stated out interest, annuities or any other annual interest. Court ruled that interest only meant annual interest. Relevance: Rules of Language (Noscitur a sociis)

DPP v Smith

Defendant cut off hair of his ex. Ratio decidendi: Cutting off hair amounted to ABH. ABH did not only include skin, flesh or bones and extended to hurt and damage. Obiter Dictum: If paint or other unpleasanr substance was to be put on someone’s hair it would amount to ABH. Relevance: Example of Ratio decidendi and obiter dictum

R v R

Case of marital rape where HoL followed CA’s decision that marriage could not be considered consent hence rape was possible in marriage. Relevance: Persuasive Precedent (Lower Court’s decision)

James v Karimi

Decided to follow PC (Privy Council) decision in Holley (that the decision in R v Smith applied to Jersey as well) instead of HoL because it deemed that justice could only be done if precedent was shifted. Relevance: Persuasive Precedent (Privy Council)

R v Mohammed

Another case where court followed PC decision in Holley. Relevance: Persuasive Precedent (Privy Council)

Stevenson v Donoghue

Snail in ginger beer bottle case; led to the formation of rule of tort + neighbour principle where you are responsible for anyone you can foresee being harmed by your actions. Relevance: Original Precedent

Herrington v British Railways Board

overrule Addie and Sons v Dumbreck to rule that an occupier owed a duty to trespassers. Relevance: Practice Statement (reluctance since it was used 6 years after it was passed)

R v Shivpuri

to overrule Anderton v Ryan because even though D could not commit full offence, he had intention to commit the act. Relevance: Practice Statement

Miliangos v George Frank Ltd

overruled Re United Railways, was originally in CA and Lord Dennings used Practice Statement to overrule HoL decision but was criticized and when the case went to the HoL, they reached the same decision but still criticized Lord Dennings. This lead to his statement in Davis v Johnson. Relevance: Practice Statement, Judicial Hierarchy

Knuller v DPP

demonstrated HoL’s reluctance to use the Practice statement. Relevance: Practice Statement

R v Kingston

D with homosexual paedophilic tendencies was drugged and committed acts with a 15 year old boy. CA reversed decision of trial judge and then HoL reversed decision of CA saying drugged intent is still intent. Relevance: Reversing

Hedley Bryne v Heller

HoL overruled the CA in Candler v Crana Christmas saying that tort of negligent misstatement existed. Relevance: Overruling

Meritt v Meritt

Distinguished from Balfour v Balfour because the relationship had already completely broken down. Relevance: Distinguishing

Davis v Johnson

Lord’s Denning statement with his criticisms of the judicial system is present. Relevance: Judicial System

Dunnett v Railtrack

losses were not awarded because they did not settle for ADR when the could have. Relevance: ADR, Civil process (advantages)

Vinis v Mark and Spencer

claim was struck out because form was served 9 days after deadline. Relevance: Woolf reforms

General Pre-Action Protocol Practice Direction 2003

requires individuals to act reasonably in the exchange of information and documents relevant to the claim and trying to avoid the necessity for proceedings then lays down a pre action protocol. Relevance: Woolf Reforms

Magistrates Court Act 1980

Under S6, magistrate must review all the evidence and documents from prosecution before sending the case to the Crown Court. Relevance: Criminal Process

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

all indictable cases must be sent forthwith to the Crown Court. Relevance: Criminal Process

Courts Act 1971

created the Crown Court. Relevance: Criminal Courts

Criminal Appeals Act 1995

outlined requirements needed for appeals. Relevance: Criminal Appeals

Criminal Investigation and Procedure Act 1996

gives Prosecutor the right to appeal if there is conviction of jury nobbling or evidence of jury nobbling. Relevance: Prosecution Appeals

Criminal Justice Act 1998

Under s36, AG is allowed to apply for leave for any offence to be referred to the CA for a re-sentencing if there is an unduly lenient sentence as long as the trial took place in the CC. Relevance: Prosecution Appeals

Criminal Justice Act 2003

allows new evidence to be introduced for the case against an acquitted person and a new trial to take place as long as you can prove that it is in the public interest to retrial the case. Only applies for serious offences. Also covers stuff on bail ie prosecution can appeal against bail, changed the charging of offenders and most likely the bail will be granted if they are suitable. Relevance: Appeals

Criminal Justice Act 1972

allows the AG to refer a point of law to the CA to get their verdict on it, won’t affect past cases but will set a precedent for cases involving same point of law. Relevance: Prosecution’s rights

R v Alladice

Defendant was already aware of his right to a solicitor and was therefore not informed that he could receive one. Court held that him knowing would not change anything therefore his confession was still admissible. Relevance: Police Powers (Detainee’s rights)

Taylor v Chief Constable of Thames

Taylor was a 10yr old boy who was arrested by a police officer during a protest after he was recognized from a previous protest throwing rocks. “I am arresting you on suspicion of violent disorder at 16th April 1998, Hilgrove Farm.” The language was clear and understandable so the court held that the arrest was lawful. Relevance: Police powers (arrest)

R v Bristol

D was arrested for obstructing a police search for drugs. As the police officer did not state their name or station, the arrest was deemed unlawful. Relevance: Police powers (arrest)

R v Grant

D was accused of hiring a hitman to murder his wife’s lover. His confession was obtained by video taping his private conversation with his solicitor. This evidence was deemed inadmissible as Lord Justice Law said any evidence obtained by deliberately undermining a suspect’s right to privileged conversation with their solicitor seriously undermined the rule of law. Relevance: Police powers (Rights of detainee)

R v Breckles

Judge directed jury to not draw adverse influence when the D is honestly not speaking in accordance with their solicitor’s advice. Relevance: Police powers (Rights of detainee)

R v N

Adverse influence was incorrectly drawn from the unexplained presence of semen on the victim’s nightgown. CA held that D was not asked this question during interrogation so no adverse influence should be drawn. Relevance: Police powers (Rights of detainee)

R v Aspinall

A schizophrenic adult required an appropriate adult to be present during the interrogation. Relevance: Police Powers (Rights of detainee)

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

allows police to set conditions for bail. Relevance: Bail

Bail Act 1976

indicates a ‘presumption’ of bail. Requires substantial grounds for denial of bail. Bail must be given if there is no possibility of a custodial sentence. Relevance: Bail

R v Wang

A man was found in possesion of a martial arts sword and a ghurka-style knife was charged. He testified that he practiced Shaolin and had good reason to carry the articles with him but judge directed jury to convict, this was upheld upon appeal but HoL quashed the conviction, referrencing R v Ponting and said there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty. Relevance: Juries

Bushell’s case

The jurors were instructed to find defendant guilty but refused even when denied food or water. After they gave their verdict they were held in contempt and imprisoned. A Habeas Corpus had to be written for their release. Relevance: Juries (independence)

Juries Act 1974

foreman of jury must announce how many agreeing or disagreeing in open court to ensure that they came to a legal majority if the vote wasnt unanimous. Relevance: juries

Hanif v UK

police officer informed the court that he knew one of the prosecution witnesses however the case went on. An appeal to the CA saw the judgement upheld but it is a violation of Art 6 of ECHR. Relevance: Juries (eligibility)

R v Salt

D’s conviction was quashed after it was revealed that one of the jurors had been the court usher’s son and sat as a juror on 5 to 6 occassions during the previous twelve months. At this point, he was an established person and not a lay person. Relevance: Juries (eligibility)

R v Twomey

costed 1.75 million pounds of taxpayer money but had to drop jury trial because jury kept getting nobbled. Relevance: Juries (disadvantage)

R v Karakaya

Juror did internet research and brought in during deliberation, conviction was quashed. Relevance: Juries (unreliable material)

R v Eraser

D was ethnic minority and all the jurors were white, judge areed to empanel another jury. Relevance: Jury Challenge to the array

R v Ford

Judge cannot interfere with juries selected by random selection. Relevance: Jury Challenge to the array

R v Wilson and Sproson

Jury was a wife of a prison officer who had come into contact with the defendant and previously applied to be excused because of it but had been refused. Conviction was quashed. Relevance: Eligibility + Challenge to cause

R v Owen

D killed the V who killed his son in a car accident. He was acquitted and even congratulated after the verdict. Relevance: Juries (perverse decisions)

R v Ponting

Government worker leaked documents that revealed that the government was lying and charged under the Offical Secrets Act 1911. Judge directed the juries that interest of the state also meant interest of the government of the day. However, the jurors still acquitted him. Relevance: Juries (independence)

R v Kronlid

3 protestors were charged with criminal damage after destroying a jet that they claimed was going to be used for a genocide in East Timor. They were acquitted. Relevance: Juries (perverse decisions) + justice

R v Fricker

tyre specialist explained the case. Relevance: Juries (might influence each other)

R v Young

use of ouija board in the hotel room. Relevance: Juries (use of unreliable material)

R v Simons

Barristers used to enjoy legal immunity with Rondel v Worsley but after this case, that was removed as no other professions enjoyed such immunity so the legal profession shouldn’t either

Young v Bristol Aeroplane

Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and laid out a significant precedent regarding judicial precent for the Court of Appeals:

1. Where there are conflicting past decisions of the Court of Appeal, it may choose which to follow;

2. If a previous decision cannot stand with a decision of the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court), the Court of Appeal must refuse to follow its own ruling; and

3. The Court of Appeal is not bound by its own decision if it was made per incuriam (i.e. through lack of care), for example if it overlooked a relevant statute or rule with statutory effect that would have influenced the outcome.

The CoA emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency and finality in the law, pointing to multiple cases where the CoA expressed regret at being bound by previous decisions but acknowledged the necessity of abiding by such established authority until such decisions were overruled by the HoL

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993

All judges appointed since April 1995 must retire at the age of 70, those appointed before may be allowed to go on to 72 or 75

R v JAC

Applicant for district judge had seven penalty points on driving license for motoring offence, guideline stated that you should not have more than 6 points

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

Widened the requirements to become a lawyer. No longer requires rights of audience but post qualification experiences - possible for candidate to gain experience in law as an academician, arbitrator or mediator. Gov lawyers are now allowed to become judges where their department is not involved.