List of Cases Law

Criminal LAW

Cases

Hunter V Canary Wharf ltd (1995)

Original precedent through analogy.

There was a problem with television reception after Canary Wharf put up a building. The judge called upon the case of Bland v Moseley and decided that as television wasn't necessary to live, just a luxury then the law would do nothing.

R v R (1991)

Persuasive precedent thought lower courts

The HOL agreed with the same reasoning as the COA in deciding that rape could be committed within marriage.

The Wagon Mound

Persuasive precedent from the Privy Council

The law on remoteness of damages in the law of tort

In later cases England and Wales followed this decision.

A-G for Jersey V Holley (2005)

Persuasive precedent from the Privy Council

six out of nine judges ruled that in defence of provocation, a defendant is to be judged by the standard of a person having ordinary powers of self control. This was contradicting what the HOL had stated. In the later case of R V Mohammed (2005) there the Courts of Appeal decided to follow the decision made by the Privy Council rather then in Smith (the HOL ruling).

Later in the case of R V James; R V Karimi (2006) a five-member COA decided that the decision in Holley would become binding.

R V Howe (1987)

Persuasive precedent from the obiter dicta from the HOL

the HOL ruled that duress could not be a defence to a charge of murder, in the judgement the lords also said that duress would not be available as a defence to someone charged of attempted murder. Later in R V Gotts (1992) a defendant charged with attempted murder tried to argue that he could use the defence of duress, the obiter statement from Howe was followed as persuasive precedent by the COA.

Colchester estates (Cardiff) V Carlton industries plc (1984)

High court binding itself

High court judges do not have to follow each other's decisions but will usually do so.

Where there were two earlier decisions which conflicted, then provided that the decision has been fully considered the latest decision should be followed.

London street tramways V London Country council (1898)

HOL binding itself

From this point until 1966 it decided it was completely bound by past decisions as certainty was deemed the most important factor of law.

DPP V Smith (1961)

Before practice statement

The judgement of this case was seen as wrong because had the HOL ruled that an accused could be guilty if a reasonable person would have foreseen that death. This decision was criticised as a defendant could be guilty even if they had not meant to kill or cause serious harm.

Eventually parliament changed the law by passing the Criminal Justice Act 1967 because the HOL would not change the law themselves.

London street tramways V London Country council (1966)

It changed the ruling of the HOL completely binding itself by past decisions and Lord Chancellor brought in the practice statement.

Conway V Rimmer (1968)

Practice statement

the first case the practice statement had been used although it only involved a small technical point on discovery of documents.

Herrington V British railways board (1972)

Practice statement.

This case involved the law on the duty of cared owed to a child trespasser, the earlier case Addie V Dumbreck (1929) had decided that an occupier of land would only owe a duty of care for injuries if those injuries