R v Bainbridge [1959] 3 All ER 200
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:30 UTC
Defendant bought equipment for X, which X used in a crime.
The judge said that it was sufficient for prosecution to show that D knew of X’s intention to commit a crime of the type which was committed, and that he did something, with that knowledge, to help the commission of the crime.
Defendant was convicted.
CA said this was the correct direction. CA say that mere “suspicion” of the crime is NOT enough.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Gianetto
Defendant was charged with murdering V and judge said it was open to jury to convict if they were satisfied that Defendant had at least been an accessory, if not the principal. CA dismissed appeal, s...
R v Clarkson
Defendants watched X rape a woman and did nothing to stop him. However they did nothing to encourage the rape nor was there evidence to show that they intended to encourage the rape. They were convic...
Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Case of Defendants agreeing to make illegal copies of a cinema’s films and sell them to X. Common law conspiracy to defraud existed without requirement for “deceit” to play a role. Similarly CA said...
Attorney-General’s Ref (No. 1 of 1975)
Defendant laced V’s drink secretly, knowing that V would drive soon. He was charged with aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring a motoring offence and was acquitted with “no case to answer”. CA s...
R v Bryce
Defendant drove X to a campsite where X killed V. At the time of Defendant’s transporting him, X had not made up his mind as to whether to carry out the murder. Defendant contended that his convictio...
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.