What happened in dpp v smith?

DPP v Smith. A policeman tried to stop the defendant from driving off with stolen goods by jumping on to the bonnet of the car. The policeman was knocked onto the path of an oncoming car and killed. The defendant was convicted of murder.

What is the definition of GBH from the case of DPP v Smith?

Grievous bodily harm means really serious harm: DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290 Case summary. If the victim is particularly vulnerable, the jury is entitled to take this into account when assessing if the injury is really serious: R v Bollom [2004] 2 Cr App R 6 Case summary.

What is the nedrick test?

R v Nedrick (1986) is an English criminal law case dealing with mens rea in murder. The case is a cornerstone as it sets down the “virtual certainty test”. It applies wherever a form of indirect (oblique) intention is apparent and the charge is one of murder, or other very specific intent.

Is cutting hair ABH?

The defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s. 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. 47, as cutting of hair itself did not constitute ABH.

What is the Cunningham test of recklessness?

Cunningham recklessness requires that the accused foresees the consequences of his actions as being probable or even possible and yet goes on to take the risk.

How is the word maliciously in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 interpreted?

In Cunningham[17] the term maliciously was interpreted to mean reckless as opposed to its actual definition which may create some confusion between specific terms used within the act.

What is the difference between GBH and wounding?

GBH or grievous bodily harm is really serious bodily harm so would include broken limbs for example, and it can also include psychiatric injury. What is wounding? Wounding is where the skin is broken (either internally or externally). For the more serious offence intent to cause serious injury or wounding is required.

What are the nedrick guidelines?

“the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant’s actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.”

Is a black eye ABH?

Actual Bodily harm The legal definition for harm in respect of this offence is that the injury caused has to be more than merely transient. Examples of actual bodily harm are where a victim receives severe bruising including a black eye, or the victim has a tooth knocked out.

Is shaving someones head assault?

First, it’s both assault and battery, both of which can be prosecuted as crimes or litigated as torts. Assault means threatening to touch, battery is the actual touching. Then by cutting the hair without consent you have committed mayhem and maiming of your victim.

Is Cunningham recklessness objective or subjective?

The first type of recklessness was subjective recklessness, that is an accused must have foreseen the risk themselves. The principal was established in the case of R v Cunningham and so this was called ‘Cunningham recklessness’.

What is objective recklessness in criminal law?

Objective recklessness is broader than this and includes situations in which the accused was wilfully blind to the consequences of his actions as he closed his mind to any contemplation of the ramifications of his behaviour.

What was the case dpdpp v Smith?

DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290. Jim Smith (S) was ordered by a police constable to stop his car which contained stolen goods, however S accelerated instead. The police constable jumped onto the car, but fell off and was killed by another oncoming car after S violently swerved the car.

What is the correct test for intention in DPP v Smith?

In Woollin, the House of Lords confirmed that the CJA 1967, s.8 overturned the decision in DPP v Smith. The correct test for intention is one of subjective intent: the court must look at the defendant’s actual state of mind at the time of the actus reus.

Does the Criminal Justice Act 1967 overturn DPP v Smith?

In R v Wallett, the Court regarded the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.8 as overturning the decision in DPP v Smith. R v Woolin [1999]

Is the test for intention subjective or objective?

After coming into force, the Courts regarded the correct test for intention to be a subjective, rather than an objective, test. R v Wallett [1968] In R v Wallett, the Court regarded the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.8 as overturning the decision in DPP v Smith.