There have, however, been exceptions where a defence of necessity has been allowed, either under common law or through specific statutory provision:
(a) Mouse's Case [1608] 12 Co Rep 63.
(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(b) (see Chapter 11).
(c) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994, SI 1994/1519, reg 33 – which provides the specific defence for emergency service drivers 'jumping' red lights denied in Buckoke v GLC (above). (d) [ case ], where the court confined its decision to the very special circumstances of the case.
(e) In medical cases where what is done is considered to be in the best interests of the 'victim': Gillick v Wisbech and West Norfolk Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 (HL), Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1 (HL).
Answer
Re A (Minors) Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment [2000] 4 All ER 961 (CA)
Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
There have, however, been exceptions where a defence of necessity has been allowed, either under common law or through specific statutory provision:
(a) Mouse's Case [1608] 12 Co Rep 63.
(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(b) (see Chapter 11).
(c) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994, SI 1994/1519, reg 33 – which provides the specific defence for emergency service drivers 'jumping' red lights denied in Buckoke v GLC (above). (d) [ case ], where the court confined its decision to the very special circumstances of the case.
(e) In medical cases where what is done is considered to be in the best interests of the 'victim': Gillick v Wisbech and West Norfolk Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 (HL), Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1 (HL).
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
There have, however, been exceptions where a defence of necessity has been allowed, either under common law or through specific statutory provision:
(a) Mouse's Case [1608] 12 Co Rep 63.
(b) Criminal Damage Act 1971, s 5(2)(b) (see Chapter 11).
(c) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994, SI 1994/1519, reg 33 – which provides the specific defence for emergency service drivers 'jumping' red lights denied in Buckoke v GLC (above). (d) [ case ], where the court confined its decision to the very special circumstances of the case.
(e) In medical cases where what is done is considered to be in the best interests of the 'victim': Gillick v Wisbech and West Norfolk Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 (HL), Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1 (HL).
Answer
Re A (Minors) Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment [2000] 4 All ER 961 (CA)
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it 5(2)(b) (see Chapter 11).
(c) Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994, SI 1994/1519, reg 33 – which provides the specific defence for emergency service drivers 'jumping' red lights denied in Buckoke v GLC (above).
(d) <span>Re A (Minors) Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment [2000] 4 All ER 961 (CA), where the court confined its decision to the very special circumstances of the case.
(e) In medical cases where what is done is considered to be in the best interests of the 'vict
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.