R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:30 UTC
Defendant paid Z to murder V. When Z was in V’s home, he decided not to murder V, but suddenly went berserk and did it.
Defendant was convicted of counselling Z and CA dismissed her appeal on the grounds that “counsel” did not require a causal connection.
On the basis of Widgery’s “ordinary meaning” rule, the word “counsel” implies no causal connection an simply means “authorise” or “advise”, etc.
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 Rook
X promised to pay Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to kill his wife. On the day, Defendant 2 was nowhere to be found but Defendant 1 killed the wife anyway. Defendant 2 was also convicted for murder as an...
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 Gilmour
Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 both intended that Defendant 1 should set V’s house on fire, Defendant 1 intending that V should be killed, whereas Defendant 2 intended merely that V should be frightened...
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...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.