List of Cases LawList of Cases LawCriminal LAWCasesHunter 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 wasnt necessary to live, just a luxury then the law would do nothing.
R v R (1991)Persuasive precedent thought lower courtsThe HOL agreed with the same reasoning as the COA in deciding that rape could be committed within marriage.The Wagon MoundPersuasive precedent from the Privy CouncilThe law on remoteness of damages in the law of tortIn later cases England and Wales followed this decision.A-G for Jersey V Holley (2005)Persuasive precedent from the Privy Councilsix 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).
A-G said:
>A-G and the HOL have been very successful at showing [that rape] can be used as a defence, and that not only have we seen it in case after case, the judgment of both parties. In both cases the judge or the judge having discretion have been satisfied that the defendant was an ordinary person, and that is not a defence in this case. In Smith [the HOL ruling] the majority was satisfied that this should not be so. As far as Smith [the HOL finding] is concerned it should be treated like any other defence, except to be shown under any of the four parts of the statute which are not clearly drawn as constituting ‘self-conflict’, ‘induced tort’, or a non-credible or implausible defence. This is to the extent that Smith is concerned it is not a defence, but the decision must be made by common law to determine which of a set of circumstances is ‘reasonable’.
>
The present case states clearly that this argument is not a defence for assault on a court of human society. The Supreme Court is of course dealing with these issues.>It could be argued that a reasonable person would understand them to be a defense. But unless these facts are proved and it has been proven to be absolutely clear from the evidence that the accused was not reasonably able, and if this is the case then the defendant is not to be charged with the offence unless he is fully incapacitated after the fact, then this is an act which amounts to assault on a public body and of a nature to be recklessly violent. If a person is found in good health unable to defend himself against an attack, and if he were to be prosecuted his charge is not within the protection of common law. However the following points are quite clear: the criminal law provides for an arbitrary punishment and it would be unjust and unjust in any circumstances for a person to be acquitted or charged for any crime in relation to which no other person, even an ordinary prisoner, would be so acquitted and charged for that crime or that offence and is accordingly void.[…]The defence sought in this case is to prove that the accused was not physically incapacitated, and that no other person, even an ordinary prisoner, would be so acquitted and charged for that crime or that offence. But if he was then tried he knows that he could not claim that he was incapacitated. He can put the case under common law; the court, however, has to decide just what evidence the accused is entitled to lay before the prosecution. The jury is charged with finding whether, and under what circumstances, evidence is not sufficient: whether it is necessary to establish that physical injuries do not constitute an assault and whether the accused cannot be held liable.[…]The present application is simply a hypothetical case: how much should the jury have to make an inference from the evidence? If there are no witnesses to suggest that
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 HOLthe 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 itselfHigh court judges do not have to follow each others 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 itselfFrom 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 statementThe 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 statementthe 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