Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, DC is a leading English criminal case which established a precedent throughout the common law world that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder. The case concerned survival cannibalism following a shipwreck, and its purported justification on the basis of a custom of the sea. [3]
R v Smith (Thomas Joseph) [1959] 2 QB 35 is an English criminal law case, dealing with causation and homicide.The court ruled that neither negligence of medical staff, nor being dropped on the way from a stretcher twice, constituted breaks in the chain of causation in murder cases.
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 is a landmark House of Lords case, where the presumption of innocence was re-consolidated (for application across the Commonwealth).. In criminal law the case identifies the metaphorical "golden thread" running through that domain of the presumption of innocence.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States, the prosecution must turn over to a criminal defendant any significant evidence in its possession that suggests the defendant is not guilty (exculpatory evidence).
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner is a leading case that confirms the need for concurrence (or coincidence) of actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") in most offences of the criminal law of England and Wales.
R. v. Jordan [2] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which rejected the framework traditionally used to determine whether an accused was tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and replaced it with a presumptive ceiling of 18 months between the charges and the trial in a provincial court without preliminary inquiry, or 30 ...
R v Dytham [1979] QB 722 is an English criminal law case dealing with liability for omissions. The court upheld the common law mantra that if there is a duty to act, then failure to do so is an offence.