Aylesbury mushroom case
When the minister didnât ask the mushroom Growers association when delegated legislation relating to them was made , declared ultra vires and the decision was overturned.
Literal rule
When judge use the literal dictionary definition of an âambiguousâ word to apply to a case
Can often lead to absurdity though (LNER v Berriman) (-)
However, of all approaches it arguably upholds parliamentary supremacy the most (+)
Golden rule
Divided into the narrow approach and broad approach
Narrow - judges had to choose between 2 dictionary definitions of a word (Adler v George)
Broad - Modify words of a statute to fit the case (RE Sigsworth)
Mischief rule
Designed to fix the gap in the law parliament intended (e.g. abortion - Royal College of Nursing)
Upholds Parliamentary supremacy as it focuses on Parliamentâs intentions
LNER v Berriman
When the claimants husband died while oiling the tracks and then tried to claim compensation however her claim failed as the judges used the literal rule and didnât define âoilingâ as maintenance and the widow didnât receive any compensation. This was an absurd result because of the literal rule.
Adler v George
When it was illegal to disrupt police in the vicinity of a prohibited place however 2 men were actually inside the prohibited place. Using the golden rule (narrow) the judges decided that it would be absurd if they werenât held liable.
RE Sigsworth
When a son murdered his mother and was set to inherit her estate and fortunes. Using the golden rule (broad), judges decided it wasnât fair for him to inherit anything even though he was her next of kin.
Royal college of nursing v DHSS
Abortion act meant that âmedical professionalsâ ie doctors could only carry out abortions and not nurses. a women had an abortion done by nurses and using the mischief rule, judges decided it was ok because it avoided the mischief of unsafe abortions done by unlicensed medical professionals.
Quintavelle v HFEA
When the original statute was created, embryos could only be made inside the body but in 2003 an embryo was made by cell nuclear replacement (CNR) and judges decided that those embryos were covered by the statute because using the purposive approach, they concluded that it upheld parliamentâs purpose.
Pepper v Hart
Allowed the use of Hansard when
1) legislation is ambiguous or leads to absurdity
2) the statements in Hansard relied upon are clear
1966 Practise Statement
Allowed the highest court to depart from its own previous decisions and thus gave it the ability to depart from the precedent set by itself. Judges were encouraged to continue following precedent, it should only be used in certain essential cases. It's because of encouragement to follow precedent. First major use was in Herrington v British Railway Board [1972] - 6 years after it was introduced which showed hesitation from judges.
Hill v Baxter
If a defendant carries out the actus reus of a crime involuntarily, they will not be guilty of the offence e.g. bee sting while driving.
Juries
Even spread of people so more diverse and representative
Could be anyone aged 18-75
Disadvantages of jury trials
no external legal research allowed - uneducated jurors might not understand point of law
jury secrecy - judges unaware if jury understood complexities within the case/points of laws
jurors donât need explain themselves when reaching a verdict so once again unclear if they understood how to apply the law
Many exceptions to being a juror including people with mental illnesses or wheelchair impaired people which canât mean the jury system is fully inclusive
Importance of juryâs decisions (key cases)
Bushellâs Case + R v McKenna
R v Mitchell
A tried to jump the queue at the post office then B confronted him. A pushed B who fell into C who was elderly and C died. A convicted of manslaughter. e.g. of voluntary actus reus.
Advantages of jury trials
Jury secrecy - cant be influenced by the opinions of the legally educated judge in the room
Usually an even split of women and men so more representative of the general public
Exclusions of people in law enforcement everyone has the same level of legal knowledge
Judges are usually case-hardened from years of experience so itâs better that the jury helps to decide on a case than just judges alone as they may lack empathy for the defendants.
Differences between civil and criminal law
Started by:
Civil - claimants
Criminal - the state
Outcome:
Civil - usually compensation
Criminal - could range from a fine to a prison sentence
Purpose:
Civil - justice/ compensation for C
Criminal - punishing D
Crown Court
Usually hears indictable offences (like murder) and some triable-either-way offences (like robbery) depending on the severity of the crime
Has a district judge and a jury
Has unlimited sentencing powers but has to stick Parliamentâs guidelines (i.e has to sit a life sentence for murder) but discretion in deciding the minimum term
Magistrates Court
Usually deals with summary offences (like s39 CJA) and some triable-either-way offences (like robbery)
Has either district judges or lay judges but no jury
Can issue fines + community orders Can sentence up to 12months maximum (recent change in Sentencing Act 2020)
Lay magistrates
No prior legal experience needed
Not very representative as magistrates are usually upper class and 53% are women
Unpaid
Better alternative to judges saw judges can be case-hardened and lack empathy
People from local area so representative
Assisted by a legal advisor (clerk)
Often in a panel of 3
R v White
D put poison in his mothersâ drink with the intention of killing her however, she died of a heart attack first. Established the âbut forâ test.
R v Pagett
D kidnapped his 16 year old girlfriend and shot her father in the leg. The police then began chasing him and then using her as a shield, he started shooting at the police. They shot back in self defence and the girl died.
R v Blaue
D stabbed V numerous times but V was a practising Jehovahâs Witness and couldnât take the blood transfusion that wouldâve saved her life. D liable for full extent of her injuries because her religion was her âthin-skullâ.
R v Smith (MI)
V stabbed by D in the chest. While on the way to the hospital, V was dropped twice. At the hospital he was given CPR by a doctor which caused him to bleed out. D still found guilty of murder as MI rarely breaks chain of causation and the stab wound was a âmore than minimalâ cause of Vâs death.
R v Jordan (MI)
D stabbed V. V was taken to hospital and was recovering successfully from the stab wound. V was then given a large dose of antibiotics that he had already shown resistance to. V was allergic and died. D wasnât liable for murder as the MI was so negligent that it broke the chain of causation and became a new cause of harm.
R v Roberts
D was sexually harassing V and she didnât want his advances. V jumped out of the car to escape his advances and was injured. D was liable to the full extent of Vâs injuries as her actions were foreseeable to the D.
Mohan
When the D has a strong desire to bring about a certain consequence. Direct intention
R v Nedrick and Woolin
Indirect intention.
In R v Woolin, the D threw his 3 month baby on the ground to stop him from crying.The D didnât mean to hurt the child however he foresaw injuring the child. Child died.
Created a 2 part test for indirect intention:
1) was the outcome a virtual certainty of Dâs actions
2) did the D realise the outcome?
Latimer
D meant to hit someone with his belt but it accidentally hit another womanâs face. D was liable for her injuries because of transferred malice. Same mens rea as Dâs intended victim.
Pembliton
D aimed a stone at people. It smashed a window and D wasnât liable for criminal damage as transferred malice wasnât possible as the mens rea were different.
Fagan V MPC
D accidentally drove his car onto someoneâs foot. He didnât notice at first but when he was informed, refused to move it for a while. Became liable for her injuries under the coincidence rule as the mens rea came after the actus reus.
Strict liability offences
Offences requiring no fault
E.g. Alphacell - Factory owner caused polluted matter to enter into a river. He was unaware.
Harrow v Shah and Shah - sold lottery tickets to U16s
Transferred malice
When the mens rea of an offence can be transferred to another. e.g Latimer, Pembliton
Common law
Law that has been made from judicial decisions.
Green paper
official consultation documents produced by the government for discussion inside and outside of parliament
White paper
Provides a basis for further consultation and discussion with interested or affected groups and allows final changes to be made before a bill is presented to parliament.
Doctrine of parliamentary supremacy
The idea that Parliament is the most superior, most powerful institution in the legal system as its the only institution that can make or break any law - including that of previous parliaments.
Types of delegated legislation
Order in council - made by privy council
Statutory instrument - made by government minister
By-law - made by local authories e.g. barking.
Advantages of delegated legislation
Saves time for Parliament by allowing experts to create detailed laws
Allows for public input through consultation processes
Reduces the burden on Parliament, freeing up time for other important matters.
Disadvantages of delegated legislation
Insufficient parliamentary scrutiny
Overuse of legislation
Confusion
Undemocratic as laws are made by unelected officials
Doctrine of judicial precedent
A source of law where past decisions made by judges in individual cases create law for future judges to follow.
Examples of persuasive precedent
Courts lower in the hierarchy
Decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council
statements made âobiter dictaâ (other things said)
a dissenting judgment
what helps form precedent?
Ratio decidendi - a judgeâs reasons for deciding something - reasons listed
obiter dicta - judges may speculate on what their decision may have been if the facts were different not binding precedent
What judges can do with existing precedent
Follow - make the same decision
Distinguish - make new precedent
Overrule - they replace the decision with precedent
Reverse - (if the judge sits in a superior court to the one the original precedent was made)
Court of appeal exceptions to following precedent
when past decisions made by CoA conflict, they can choose whether to reject or follow
where the supreme court decision overrules a CoA decision
Diminished Responsibility
A partial defence to murder where D claims that their medical condition was the main reason that they killed V. If successful - voluntary manslaughter
Loss of control
A partial defence to murder where D claims that they killed V because of Vâs actions.
Loss of control triggers
1) Things done or said of extremely grave character to make D feel a justifiable sense of being wronged.
2) Acting out of fear.
R v Byrne (DR)
where it was shown that D acted abnormally due to the severity of the crime
R v Dietschmann (DR)
Couldnât use the defence as jury believed it was due to intoxication
R v Wood (DR)
Alcohol dependency syndrome was Dâs recognised medical condition so DR was avaliable.
Unlawful act manslaughter
When D commits a crime that leads to the death of V.
R v Mitchell (UAM)
Battery led to Vâs death
R v Larkin (UAM)
Objectively dangerous act - threatening someone with a razor
R v JM & SM (UAM)
Dangerous act - fight with security members
Advocate
Free confidential advice from a helpline
Can apply for funding but will do âmeans testedâ first
Helps with all cases criminal or civil
Advocate
A pro bono legal charity
Barristers that are responsible for the advocacy of their clients
Available in criminal cases
Legal centres
Criminal and civil cases
Can simply go in and receive free advice
However, many have had to close down due to cuts in government funding
Can also give funding
Government-appointed solicitor
For anyone suspected of a crime at a police station has the right to legal advice
Available 24 hours a day
Can also be responsible for advocacy of the client