Professional to use Skilled Persons Ordinary Care Negligence was alleged against a doctor. Held: McNair J directed the jury: ‘Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the … Continue reading Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee: QBD 1957
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been allowed to rely on a plea of diminished responsibility given the changes to section 2 of the 1957 Act introduced in 2009. He said that his alcoholism should have been treated as explaining his loss of self control and amounting to … Continue reading Dowds v Regina: CACzD 22 Feb 2012
The court was asked: ‘Whether, for a craving for drink or drugs in itself to produce an abnormality of mind within the meaning of S. 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957, the craving must be such as to render the accused’s use of drink or drugs involuntary or whether it is sufficient for the defence … Continue reading Tandy, Regina v: CACD 21 Dec 1987
The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder, saying that he should have been allowed to rely on a plea of dimished responsibillity given the changes to section 2 of the 1957 Act introduced in 2009. He said that his alcoholism should . .
The deceased and the claimant lived together for about 10 years in an apparently stable and loving relationship. They had a son together. They also co-owned a house (by way of joint tenancy) in which they lived. In April 2013 the claimant was referred by his GP for a mental health assessment after describing feelings … Continue reading Chadwick v Collinson and Others: ChD 24 Sep 2014
The claimant had been found guilty of the manslaughter by diminished responsibility of the deceased. He now sought disapplication of the 1982 Act. Held: The application failed: ‘The reforms introduced by the Homicide Act 1957 were designed to preserve certain classes of offender from capital punishment for killings carried out by reason of diminished responsibility … Continue reading D v L and Others: ChD 16 Apr 2003
Dr Crippen notoriously survived his wife. Between the date of his conviction for her murder and the carrying out of the death sentence passed on him, Dr Crippen made a will naming Ethel Le Neve as the sole executrix and universal beneficiary. Ethel Le Neve was passed over on a motion for the grant of … Continue reading In the Estate of Cunigunda Crippen deceased: 1911
A husband had accidentally shot and killed his wife’s lover after threatening him with a shotgun. Held: The court confirmed the decision at first instance. He was not liable to be indemnified by his insurers for the losses claimed against him by the deceased’s estate as a result of the shooting. It is not every … Continue reading Gray v Barr: CA 1971
The defendant had used a shotgun to threaten a man and the gun had accidentally gone off and killed him. The issue was whether the defendant could recover in respect of his liability under a policy of insurance. . Held: The rule of public policy that a criminal should forfeit any interest in a benefit … Continue reading Gray v Barr: ChD 1970
(Jersey) The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, claiming a misdirection on the law of provocation. A chronic alcoholic, he had admitted killing his girlfriend with an axe. Nine law lords convened to seek to reconcile conflicting decisions of the House as to provocation. Held: The defence of provocation has two ingredients. The first, subjective … Continue reading Her Majestys Attorney General for Jersey v Holley: PC 15 Jun 2005
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent duty to leave that option to the jury. Held: The appeal succeeded. The judge should have left a manslaughter … Continue reading Regina v Coutts: HL 19 Jul 2006
A wife had pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her husband, though she had been subject to long term abuse by him. Held: Relief was granted to the wife under s.2(2) of the 1982 Act. The forfeiture rule for suicide operates to sever any joint tenancy on the death. The rule applied in a case … Continue reading In Re K, decd: ChD 2 Jan 1985
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder, saying that his defence of provocation should have been left for the jury. Held: Not following Luc, it was open to admit relevant evidence on the defendant’s capacity for self-control. Having said it was admissible, what would have been its effect? The court could not decide that, and … Continue reading Regina v Parker: CACD 25 Feb 1997
The court considered the direction to be given as to the existence of provocation so as to reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. The reasonable man in the definition should be one with the defendant’s mental condition. ‘The judge should state what the question is using the very terms of the section. … Continue reading Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camplin: HL 1978
The appellant sought to argue that despite having been found unfit to plead under the 1964 Act, it was still open to him to argue that the defence under section 2 of the 1957 Act applied, and that he was entitled to be plead diminished responsibility. The judge had followed Egan in saying that the … Continue reading Regina v Antoine: HL 30 Mar 2000
The defendant was a glue sniffer. He had been taunted, and eventually attacked one of those villifying him. The judge excluded from the jury that the characteristics he suffered as a glue sniffer which might affect his response to provocation. Held: A verdict of manslaughter was substituted. For the test under section 3, the jury … Continue reading Regina v Morhall: HL 21 Jul 1995
A woman had killed her husband, but been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder on grounds of diminished responsibility. A hospital order was made under the Mental Health Act 1959. It was argued that in these circumstances the forfeiture rule should not apply. Held: The court rejected any attempt to limit the common law rule … Continue reading In re Giles Deceased: 1972
The rule against an offender benefitting from his crime applies not just in cases involving a conviction for murder. Held: The court rejected a suggestion that a distinction should be drawn between cases of murder and manslaughter. Lord Cozens-Hardy MR failed entirely to appreciate the supposed distinction: ‘it was a case of felony and I … Continue reading In the Estate of Julian Bernard Hall deceased; In re RH: CA 1914
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in negligence. The defendant relied upon a defence of illegality. Held: All the heads of claim … Continue reading Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust: CA 3 Aug 2018
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the circumstances under which someone might be prosecuted … Continue reading Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 30 Jul 2009
The defendant had been convicted of murder in 1972. He now appealed on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission questioning the failure of the judge to direct on provocation. He had killed a girl after they tried but failed to have intercourse. Held: The defendant had failed to establish evidence to sufficient to … Continue reading Serrano, Regina v: CACD 1 Dec 2006
The court was asked whether the rule against forfeiture applied so as to disentitle an applicant from receiving a widow’s allowance when she had killed her husband with a knife. She had been held guilty of manslaughter but simply placed on probation. Held: The forfeiture rule does not apply universally to all cases involving a … Continue reading Regina v Chief National Insurance Commissioner Ex Parte Connor: QBD 1981
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a conviction under the 1982 Act, and that the three month … Continue reading Challen v Challen and Another: ChD 27 May 2020
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant. Held: The appeal was allowed, and relief against forfeiture was given. Mummery LJ said: ‘the presence of … Continue reading Dunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant: CA 23 Jul 1997
The wife who had been subjected to years of abuse shot her violent husband dead in the course of an argument, when a loaded shotgun she had picked up and pointed at him as a threat to deter him from offering her further violence went off . .
