Search results
According to him a transaction is: A group of facts together to be referred to by a single legal name, a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.
FACTS: The appellant was a 36 years old Indian woman named Kiranjit Ahluwalia, who entered into an arranged marriage with Deepak Ahluwalia. She had suffered many years of physical, psychological and sexual abuse from her husband. There were records of her husband hitting her on multiple occasions and of attempts to run her down.
R v Johnson [1988] 1 WLR 1377 ‘Informants protection – Observation posts’ In this case, the accused was charged with supplying controlled drugs. The evidence against him consisted almost entirely of observation evidence from police officers who carried out
May 29, 2021 · These facts were held by the Court to be relevant as forming the parts of the same transaction and as also constituting the subsequent conduct of the accused. In Malkiat Singh v State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341, it was held by the Supreme Court that an injured witness is a part of the transaction. It was also held that the fact of his injury ...
- Facts
- Issues
- Decision / Outcome
JM and SM had been involved in a fight with a few doormen in a nightclub. One of the doormen, who had no signs of health problems, had a renal artery aneurysm and died. JM and SM were charged with affray and manslaughter caused by an unlawful act (affray being the unlawful act). The judge held that without the prosecution proving that the victim’s ...
The prosecution argued that the trial judge had erred in his finding that it was a necessary element of manslaughter resulting from an unlawful act that any reasonable person should inevitably see that the victim’s death occurred due to the “sort of harm” the risk of which the unlawful act carried.
Allowing the prosecution’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was not a requirement of unlawful act manslaughter that the accused should have foreseen any specific harm or that any reasonable person would have realised the sort of harm that had in fact occurred and caused the victim’s death. What actually mattered was whether a reasonable per...
R v R [1991] is a decision in which the House of Lords determined that under English criminal law, it is a crime for a husband to rape his wife.
People also ask
What happened in R V M (J)?
How did R v R affect marriage?
What is R v R?
Why did R v R remove the legal exemption for rape in marriage?
A principle in English law that a husband could not rape his wife had long been supposed in writing to be correct. R v R was the first case in which this exemption reached the House of Lords.
