Criminal Law Cases AQA A Level Law Study
Guide Rated A+
1). Smith v chief constable of woking (1983)
Ans: immediate can mean imminent
2). R v lamb (1967)
Ans: no assault if no apprehension
3). R v ireland (1997)
Ans: silence can amount to assault
4). R v constanza (1997)
Ans: written words can amount to assault
5). R v cunningham (1957)
Ans: defines recklessness as whether the defendant could have foreseen that some
harm could result
6). Collins v wilcock (1984)
Ans: Contact is unlawful if the physical contact was "beyond generally acceptable
standards of conduct"
7). Faulkner v talbot (1981)
Ans: Any touching will suffice for battery
8). Dpp v k (1990)
Ans: Battery can be committed by an indirect act
PaperStoc.com Page 1 of 17
, 9). Haystead v dpp (2000)
Ans: Battery can be transferred to victims without touching them.
10). R v miller (1954)
Ans: defined ABH as 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere the health or comfort of
the victim'
11). R v roberts (1971)
Ans: No break in the chain of causation if the victim's actions were reasonably
foreseeable
12). R v chan fook (1994)
Ans: psychiatric injury has to be clinically proven, emotions are not ABH
13). R v savage (1991)
Ans: intent to cause some harm is sufficient as the mens rea for ABH or GBH
14). Dpp v smith (2006)
Ans: if enough hair is cut out it can amount to ABH or GBH
15). R v mohan (1976)
Ans: defined intention as: a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the
accused's power, the prohibited consequence.
16). R v thomas (1985)
Ans: Touching clothes counts as battery.
17). Read v coker (1853)
Ans: Gestures or threats of violence can be an assault
18). R v adomako (1994)
PaperStoc.com Page 2 of 17
, Ans: Developed into test in R v Broughton (2020)
19). R v bowyer (2013)
Ans: Cannot have a feeling of being justifiably wronged if you are committing a
criminal act
20). Hill v baxter (1958)
Ans: Burden of proof for automatism is on the defence
21). R v dietschmann (2003)
Ans: Lord Hutton: did that abnormality impair his mental responsibility for his acts in
doing the killing?
22). R v oye (2013)
Ans: An insane person cannot set the standards as to reasonableness of force
23). A-g ref no 2 of 1992
Ans: Must be a total loss of control, showing some control negates automatism as a
defence
24). R v coley, mcghee and harris (2013)
Ans: If you are in an involuntary state due to voluntary actions, you cannot rely on
automatism as a defence
25). R v bird (1985)
Ans: Evidence of a retreat by the D is useful but not essential
26). R v kemp (1957)
Ans: Disease of the mind can apply to physical conditions
27). R v burgess (1991)
PaperStoc.com Page 3 of 17
Guide Rated A+
1). Smith v chief constable of woking (1983)
Ans: immediate can mean imminent
2). R v lamb (1967)
Ans: no assault if no apprehension
3). R v ireland (1997)
Ans: silence can amount to assault
4). R v constanza (1997)
Ans: written words can amount to assault
5). R v cunningham (1957)
Ans: defines recklessness as whether the defendant could have foreseen that some
harm could result
6). Collins v wilcock (1984)
Ans: Contact is unlawful if the physical contact was "beyond generally acceptable
standards of conduct"
7). Faulkner v talbot (1981)
Ans: Any touching will suffice for battery
8). Dpp v k (1990)
Ans: Battery can be committed by an indirect act
PaperStoc.com Page 1 of 17
, 9). Haystead v dpp (2000)
Ans: Battery can be transferred to victims without touching them.
10). R v miller (1954)
Ans: defined ABH as 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere the health or comfort of
the victim'
11). R v roberts (1971)
Ans: No break in the chain of causation if the victim's actions were reasonably
foreseeable
12). R v chan fook (1994)
Ans: psychiatric injury has to be clinically proven, emotions are not ABH
13). R v savage (1991)
Ans: intent to cause some harm is sufficient as the mens rea for ABH or GBH
14). Dpp v smith (2006)
Ans: if enough hair is cut out it can amount to ABH or GBH
15). R v mohan (1976)
Ans: defined intention as: a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the
accused's power, the prohibited consequence.
16). R v thomas (1985)
Ans: Touching clothes counts as battery.
17). Read v coker (1853)
Ans: Gestures or threats of violence can be an assault
18). R v adomako (1994)
PaperStoc.com Page 2 of 17
, Ans: Developed into test in R v Broughton (2020)
19). R v bowyer (2013)
Ans: Cannot have a feeling of being justifiably wronged if you are committing a
criminal act
20). Hill v baxter (1958)
Ans: Burden of proof for automatism is on the defence
21). R v dietschmann (2003)
Ans: Lord Hutton: did that abnormality impair his mental responsibility for his acts in
doing the killing?
22). R v oye (2013)
Ans: An insane person cannot set the standards as to reasonableness of force
23). A-g ref no 2 of 1992
Ans: Must be a total loss of control, showing some control negates automatism as a
defence
24). R v coley, mcghee and harris (2013)
Ans: If you are in an involuntary state due to voluntary actions, you cannot rely on
automatism as a defence
25). R v bird (1985)
Ans: Evidence of a retreat by the D is useful but not essential
26). R v kemp (1957)
Ans: Disease of the mind can apply to physical conditions
27). R v burgess (1991)
PaperStoc.com Page 3 of 17
