Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#cd #crime #law
Question
[ case ], FACTS: The defendants had pushed a coping stone from a bridge onto a train, which had hit a carriage showering the passengers with debris from the roof. The conviction had been based on a direction that intent to endanger life by the stone falling on a passenger would suffice. HELD: The court substituted a conviction based on recklessness (per Taylor CJ):

'If the defendant's intention is that the stone itself should crash through the roof of a train or motor vehicle and thereby directly injure a passenger, or if he was reckless only as to that outcome, the section would not bite. If, however, the defendant intended or was reckless that the stone would smash the roof of the train or vehicle so that metal or wood struts from the roof would or obviously might descend upon a passenger, endangering life, he would surely be guilty. This may seem to many a dismal distinction.'

Answer
R v Webster [1995] 2 All ER 168

Tags
#cd #crime #law
Question
[ case ], FACTS: The defendants had pushed a coping stone from a bridge onto a train, which had hit a carriage showering the passengers with debris from the roof. The conviction had been based on a direction that intent to endanger life by the stone falling on a passenger would suffice. HELD: The court substituted a conviction based on recklessness (per Taylor CJ):

'If the defendant's intention is that the stone itself should crash through the roof of a train or motor vehicle and thereby directly injure a passenger, or if he was reckless only as to that outcome, the section would not bite. If, however, the defendant intended or was reckless that the stone would smash the roof of the train or vehicle so that metal or wood struts from the roof would or obviously might descend upon a passenger, endangering life, he would surely be guilty. This may seem to many a dismal distinction.'

Answer
?

Tags
#cd #crime #law
Question
[ case ], FACTS: The defendants had pushed a coping stone from a bridge onto a train, which had hit a carriage showering the passengers with debris from the roof. The conviction had been based on a direction that intent to endanger life by the stone falling on a passenger would suffice. HELD: The court substituted a conviction based on recklessness (per Taylor CJ):

'If the defendant's intention is that the stone itself should crash through the roof of a train or motor vehicle and thereby directly injure a passenger, or if he was reckless only as to that outcome, the section would not bite. If, however, the defendant intended or was reckless that the stone would smash the roof of the train or vehicle so that metal or wood struts from the roof would or obviously might descend upon a passenger, endangering life, he would surely be guilty. This may seem to many a dismal distinction.'

Answer
R v Webster [1995] 2 All ER 168
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
R v Webster [1995] 2 All ER 168, FACTS: The defendants had pushed a coping stone from a bridge onto a train, which had hit a carriage showering the passengers with debris from the roof. The conviction had been based o

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions

Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.