805998
Description
Flashcards by Jessica 'JessieB, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Jessica 'JessieB
over 10 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Case Outcome: Dudley and Stephens (1884) | The defendant's ate a cabin boy in order to survive a shipwreck. Their plea of necessity was rejected. |
| Case Facts: "Necessity would open a door that no man could shut." - Southwark London Borough Council v Williams (1970) | The defendants were in great need of housing accommodation and entered empty houses belonging to the local council. The council went to the courts to get them evicted. |
| Case Outcome: "Necessity would open a door that no man could shut." - Southwark London Borough Council v Williams (1970) | The courts said that despite the family's circumstances, the defence didn't apply and they were evicted. |
| Case Facts: F v Berkshire Health Authority (1990) | The defendants had to carry out a sterilisation operation on a woman who was incapable of giving consent due to a medical condition. If she wouldn't get sterilised, then there was a high chance she could get pregnant which would have had a very disturbing impact on her. |
| Case Outcome: F v Berkshire Health Authority (1990) | The courts granted the defence. |
| Case Facts: Duress and Necessity considered two separate offences - Re: A (2000) | An operation to separate conjoined was essential to save at least on of the children's lives. If not, both children would die. The parents denied consent to the operation. |
| Case Outcome: Duress and Necessity considered two separate offences - Re: A (2000) | The doctors applied to the courts and the courts granted to make the operation lawful. The courts also held that the defence would be available if they were to be charged with the murder of the weaker twin. |
| Case Facts: Shayler (2002) | The defendant was a former member of the security services. He was charged with disclosing confidential documents in breach of the Official Secrets Act 1989. |
| Case Outcome: Shayler (2002) | The defence was denied and his conviction upheld. The case formed a three part test: 1) The act must be done to prevent some greater evil, 2) The evil must be directed towards the defendant or a person for whom he was responsible and 3) The act must be reasonable and proportionate to the evil avoided. |
| Case Outcome: Quayle and Others (2005) | The courts said that necessity shouldn't be available to those charged with drug offences because they used drugs for relieving painful symptoms like MS or physical injuries. The courts said a restrictive approach is needed to not contradict the law. |
| Case Facts: Altham (2006) | The defendant used cannabis for pain relief and was charged with possessing drugs. |
| Case Outcome: Altham (2006) | The courts stated that he couldn't raise the offence by relying on Article 3 of the ECHR. His conviction was upheld relying on Quayle and Others. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.