DPP v Little [1992] 95 Crim App R 28
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:03:10 UTC
A case which determined, at CA level, that assault and battery were two separate offences, the accused being charged in both instances as being contrary to s.39 CJA 1988.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Haystead v Chief constable of Derbyshire
Battery involves the actus reus, which encompasses the physical act or conduct that constitutes the offense. Reckless battery occurs when the assailant acts with a blatant disregard for consequences,...
R v Allen
A was charged with indecent assault. In defence he claimed that he had: Not realised how high the alcohol content was of is drink so that he was not to blame for his drunkenness, and That his drunken...
R v Ireland
In English law, assault is the intentional or reckless act of causing another person to fear immediate harm, emphasizing the victim's perception of danger rather than physical contact. Assault occasi...
Fagan v MPC
The concept of unintentional battery is considered when the car is driven onto the policeman's foot. The issue of mens rea is raised, contemplating whether the subsequent inception of intent can tran...
R v O’Flaherty
Case involved a very complex brawl. The outcome from the CA was that it is for the jury to decide if the action went beyond the scope of the JCV and that a joint enterprise could occur on the spur of...
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.