8931167
Description
Flashcards by Yasmine King, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Yasmine King
almost 7 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| DPP v Smith (legal principle) | Definition of GBH, really serious harm that need not be life threatening |
| R v Burstow (case facts ) | D followed his ex- girlfriend, telephoned her and wrote menacing letters. She suffered severe clinical depression as a result |
| R v Burstow (legal principle) | Harm can be psychiatric |
| R v Dica (case facts) | D infected two women with HIV. Knowing he was HIV positive, he did not warn them |
| R v Dica (legal principle) | Harm can be biological |
| R v Brown and Stratton (case facts) | The D's attacked his father causing a broken nose, three broken teeth and a cut over the eye |
| R v Brown and Stratton (legal principle) | GBH can be multiple lesser injuries (an accumulation) |
| R v Bollom (case facts) | GBH to a 17 month old child after causing bruises and abrasions all over the baby |
| R v Bollom (legal principle) | Age and health are factors that can be considered when deciding whether the injuries are enough to be GBH |
| R v Martin (case facts) | D placed an iron bar and exit and yelled 'Fire!' Several people were badly injured in their attempt to escape |
| R v Martin (legal principle) | GBH can be committed indirectly |
| R v Mowatt | D only needs to have the mens rea to cause some harm |
| R v Mohan | Intention is where a D makes a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence |
| R v Cunnigham | D realises a risk and takes it anyway |
| R v Belfon | Intention to cause serious harm |
| R v Woolin | Is the consequence a virtual certainty? Did the defendant realise it was a virtual certainty? |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.