Back to Homev2.0.0

Little Lawyer Practice

Generate legal case scenarios with AI-powered practice questions

Select Legal Cases * (Multiple selection)

Tip: you can select multiple cases and then generate one combined scenario.

R v Hinks

[2000] UKHL 53

An absolute gift can still constitute 'appropriation' for the purposes of theft.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Gomez

[1993] AC 442

Appropriation can occur even if the owner consents to the property being taken.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

Ivey v Genting Casinos

[2017] UKSC 67

Established the objective test for dishonesty in all criminal cases.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Ghosh

[1982] QB 1053

The old two-stage test for dishonesty (now overruled by Ivey).

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Velumyl

[1989] Crim LR 299

Intending to replace money later is still an 'intent to permanently deprive'.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

Oxford v Moss

(1979) 68 Cr App R 183

Confidential information (e.g., exam questions) is not 'property' that can be stolen.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Turner (No 2)

[1971] 1 WLR 901

You can steal your own property if it is in the 'possession or control' of another.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Dawson & James

(1976) 64 Cr App R 170

In robbery, 'force' is a matter of fact for the jury and can be slight.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Hale

(1978) 68 Cr App R 415

Appropriation in robbery can be seen as a continuing act.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Collins

[1973] QB 100

Burglary requires an 'effective and substantial' entry as a trespasser.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Walkington

[1979] 1 WLR 1169

Entry into a prohibited part of a building (e.g., behind a counter) is burglary.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

R v Jones & Smith

[1976] 1 WLR 672

Entering a premises in excess of permission makes one a trespasser.

Property Offences (Theft, Fraud, Burglary)

M’Naghten’s Case

(1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200

The foundation for the insanity defence: defect of reason from disease of the mind.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Sullivan

[1984] AC 156

Disease of the mind includes organic or functional triggers like epilepsy.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Quick

[1973] QB 910

Automatism caused by external factors (insulin) is not insanity.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Hennessy

[1989] 1 WLR 287

High blood sugar (diabetes) is an internal factor, thus classified as insanity.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

DPP v Majewski

[1977] AC 443

Voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Hardie

[1985] 1 WLR 64

If a drug has an unpredictable 'soporific' effect, intoxication may be involuntary.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Kingston

[1995] 2 AC 355

Involuntary intoxication is no defence if the D still formed the necessary intent.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Graham

[1982] 1 WLR 294

Established the two-stage test for duress (subjective/objective).

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Hasan

[2005] UKSC 22

Duress is excluded if D voluntarily associates with criminals.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Howe

[1987] AC 417

Duress is not a defence to murder.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Gotts

[1992] 2 AC 412

Duress is not a defence to attempted murder.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Gladstone Williams

(1984) 78 Cr App R 276

Self-defence is judged on D's honest belief of the facts.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Ray

[2017] EWCA Crim 1391

Clarified the 'householder' defence in cases of self-defence.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Dudley and Stephens

(1884) 14 QBD 273

Necessity is not a defence to murder.

Defences (Capacity & Excuses)

R v Jogee

[2016] UKSC 8

Secondary liability requires intent to assist/encourage, not mere foresight.

Participation & Inchoate Crimes

R v Gnango

[2011] UKSC 59

Transferred malice can apply in joint enterprise for murder.

Participation & Inchoate Crimes

R v Clarkson

[1971] 1 WLR 1402

Mere presence at a crime is not enough for aiding and abetting.

Participation & Inchoate Crimes

R v Riordan

[1998] 1 Cr App R 209

Withdrawal from a joint enterprise requires clear communication.

Participation & Inchoate Crimes

R v Shannon

[1981] 73 Cr App R 171

The actus reus for attempt is more than merely preparatory.

Participation & Inchoate Crimes

R v Jones

[1990] 1 WLR 1057

Pointing a loaded gun can be more than merely preparatory for attempt.

Participation & Inchoate Crimes

R v Geddes

[1996] Crim LR 894

Being found with a knife and tape near a school is not more than merely preparatory.

Participation & Inchoate Crimes

R v Gullefer

[1990] 1 WLR 1063

The act must be immediately connected to the commission of the offence.

Participation & Inchoate Crimes

R v Ireland; R v Burstow

[1998] AC 147

Psychiatric injury can amount to bodily harm.

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

R v Miller

[1954] 2 QB 282

Assault can be committed by words alone.

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

R v Savage

[1991] 1 AC 699

For s.47, intent to cause harm is not required, only assault/battery plus harm.

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

R v Parmenter

[1992] 1 AC 699

Recklessness to some harm is sufficient for s.20.

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

R v Cunningham

[1957] 2 QB 396

Subjective recklessness for s.20 (awareness of risk).

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

R v Vickers

[1957] 2 QB 664

Malice aforethought includes intent to cause GBH.

Fatal Offences (Homicide)

R v Cunningham

[1982] AC 566

Malice aforethought: intent to kill or cause GBH.

Fatal Offences (Homicide)

R v Woollin

[1999] 1 AC 82

Oblique intent: virtual certainty test.

Fatal Offences (Homicide)

R v Moloney

[1985] AC 905

Natural consequences evidence of intent but not conclusive.

Fatal Offences (Homicide)

R v Nedrick

[1986] 1 WLR 1025

Earlier formulation of oblique intent (virtual certainty).

Fatal Offences (Homicide)

R v Church

[1966] 1 QB 59

Unlawful act manslaughter requires dangerousness test.

Fatal Offences (Homicide)

Practice Type *

Complexity

Image Generation Model

Console Log(0)

No logs yet...