Welcome to my blog!

My names Aadil and I'm currently studying Law LLB at a university in London. Prior to this I studied law at A-levels for the AQA examination board and obtained a grade A in 2014.Moreover, I was also given an award for bring one of the top 10 highest achievers at my university. The aim of this blog is to make it easier for you to understand the basic concepts of law and to make your life easier! I've simplified most the work to contain the essentials and will simplify most of it with diagrams and answers that I have written.

Cases are highlighted in bold  and the main principles behind the case follow
I HAVE NOT included the facts of the cases, merely the legal reasoning.

Thanks for checking out my blog. As you can see it's a work in progress and I aim to complete this by the end of the summer! :)

Contact: Email

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dilszy

Public Law - Judicial Review Problem Question Structure

Judicial review

Judicial review is process where a high court judge will challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by a body carrying out their public functions. Public essential means governmental in nature and/or their devisions affect the general public as in a decision affecting the population
The special procedure to be followed is laid out in PART 54 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES and states that a claimant must first fill out a claim form and then this must be submitted to the high court within the time limit (3 months). Moreover, judicial review is exclusive to public law and not private law and a claim can only be brought if there are no other available remedies

In this scenario, the claimants would be________
And would be bringing action against (the defendants)
_________ would he deemed a public authority under section 6(3) of the Human rights acts 1988 as they are acting with functions amenable to the public. And so under section 6(1) of the Human rights act 1988 can be subject to review. IN ASTON CANTLOW V WALLBANK, a parochial church council was not deemed a public body
Under section 31(3) of the senior courts act 1981, standing will be ascertained by the claimants if they have 'sufficient interest' in the matter
National federation of self employed and small businesses ruled that standing will be ascertained at the full hearing and will be granted if the claimant has good grounds to seek review

If there is a human rights issues then the victim teat as laid down under section 7(3) of the Human Rights Act 1988 will be applied
In jr1's application, standing was denied as the child was not affected by the decision to use taser guns.

THE NGO will be granted standing if they have a close connection with the issue (WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT)
It must not be assumed standing will be granted to all matters as in rose theatre standing was denied
If denied standing then the group may participate in the claim as a third part intervener where they can offer advice and expertise on the matter

the grounds for review are set out in CCSU
and include illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and within the last two months, pham v secretary of state for the home dept recognised proportionality as a common law ground for review

ILLEGALITY INCLUDES
Ultra vires - 'going beyond the power granted' AG V FULHAM (municipal laundry)
Fettering of discretion... LORD REID IN BRITISH OXYGEN BOARD V MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY stated that 'an authority should not shut their ears to application whens decision concerned is
ABDICATING DISCRETION
FOLLOWING ANOTHER BODYS DECISION AND NOW YOUR OWN ------- Lavender: minister of agriculture had acted unlawfully
DICTATION: ultra vires if ordered to do something ---- roncarell
IMPROPER PURPOSE: when an authority makes a decision based on an improper or ulterior purpose
ERRORS OF LAW
ERRORS OF FACT
IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION - Roberts v Hopwood (ratepayer was not considered in the decision)

Irrationality essentially concerns unreasonableness and the definition of this was stated by lord greene in wednesbury whereby a decision made a body is "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have ever come to it"
DUFFY

Proportionality was amended as a common law ground for review following the decision in pham v secretary of state for the home dept.  It was held to be now recognised as a common law ground for review irrespective of any issues in relation to eu/echr
Daly ruled a 3 stage test that the courts should consider when dealing with proportionality
The importance of the legitimate aim
Whether the measures taken are rationally connected to that aim
And whether they were no more than necessary in achieving that aim
Huang and begum as case law demonstrate the procedure to be flowed when dealing  with review based on an echr ground

Procedural impropriety as a ground for review concerns whether theres been a breach of the rules of natural justice or if theres been a failure to follow a procedural requirement
-Failure to follow a statutory procedure: in Bradbury v enfield lbc the local authority had failed to follow the procedure laid down
-Right to be heard: john v rees ruled anyone who has to exercise a statutory right
Right to be judged free from bias : porter v magll: whether a fair minded and informed observer conclude and real possibility of bias DIMES V GJCP: Actual bias is not necessary, appearance of bias is enough to disqualify a judge from hearing a case
Consulation: coughlan
Legitimate expectation: a procedure being followed creates a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit being conferred  AG V NG YUEN SHIU: should have been listened in relation to his application

If it can be proven that the D has acted in contravention to one or more of the grounds for review then it may be possible that the courts would grant a remedy. Remedies are discretionary and are divided into ordinary(injunction, declaration, damages) and perogative (mandatory, prohibitory and quashing orders)

Quashing order revokes the previous decision
In ex part st germain an order was used

Prohibitory order stops an act from taking place

Mandatory order compels a public body/authority to do something

Injunctions can either allow the d from acting in a certain way (mandatory) or make the d stop an act prohibitory
Interim injunction allows to pressure litigants until trial

Declaration between the parties makes the position

Adverse Possession Sorted

Adverse possession is where an interest in land can be acquired simply by taking possession of the land 

In establishing a claim for adverse possession, the claimant must show that there was 

1. Factual possession

2. An intention to possess

3. Both factual possession and an intention possess were exercises over a sufficient length of time

--------------------------------------------

In establishing factual possession we must show the claimant intended to exclude all others from the land and that s/he had physical possession of the land. Seddon v Smith ruled 'enclosure to be the strongest possible form of adverse possession.

Other acts that can establish factual possession are 

- Grazing (JA PYE OXFORD V GRAHAM)

- Works of active maintenance/ improvement (Newingtom v Windyer)

- Construction of buildings/ extensions (Prudential assurance co v Waterloo real estates)

- Trivial acts are not enough (Tecbild v Chamberlain)

--------------------------------------------

Next we must establish that the claimant had animus possidendi (an intention to posses). This can be shows through 'an intention for the time being to possess the land to the exclusion of all other persons including the paper title owner' - BUCKS CC V MORAN. Any evidence of intention is sufficient and examples include fencing (BUCKS CC V MORAN), locked gates (LAMBETH LBC V BLACKBURN) etc. It must be noted that equivocal acts are not enough (Powell v Macfarlane) and an fencing without an intention to exclude other is not sufficient (Fruin v Fruin) 

--------------------------------------------

Lastly we must establish that this was done over a sufficient length of time. For land of an unregistered nature the law is governed by The Limitation Act 1980 and under S15(1) of the act a squatter can claim possession for land if s/he can show the requisite factual possession and animus possidendi for a period of 12 years ending on the date of application. If this can be proved then the squatter can claim superior title to the land and will defeat the paper titles rights. The squatter can then apply to the registrar to be the registered proprietor.

--------------------------------------------

For land of a registered nature the law is governed under The Land Registration Act 2002 and under schedule 6 paragraph 1(1) a squatter can make an application to be registered if it can be shows that s/he was in adverse possession for a period of 10 years ending on the date of application. The paper title owner and any other with an interest will then be notified (schedule 6 (2)) and they then have 65 days to write a letter of written objection (Land registration rules 2003 regulation 189). If a letter of objection is made which it most likely will then the squatters claim will be defeated unless one of the exceptions under schedule 6(4) can be proven. 

--------------------------------------------

1. Where it would be unconscionable to reject a claim of adverse possession where an estoppel has taken place

2. Where the squatter has some other right to the land such as where the estate gas been paid for it was never transferred (Bridges v Mees) 

3. Where there be a dispute in relation to a boundary 

If it any of the above exceptions can apply the Squatter can claim title to the land

If an action has not been taken by the paper title owner then all the squatter needs to do is to show adverse possession for a further two years and then they can make another application to be registered (schedule 6(6)) and this time it will be once and for all accepted and the squatter will become the new registered proprietor (schedule 6(7))

Proprietary Estoppel Sorted

If you follow this structure, it should help you understand proprietary estoppel more clearly

Proprietary estoppel was established in order to prevent an individual from insisting on his strict legal rights where it would inequitable for him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties (crabb v arun)

The leading authority for this is Taylor fashion ltd v liverpool victoria trustees and sets out that in to bring a claim there must have been a representation, reliance on said representation and a detriment suffered

The claimant must show some kind of representation which lead them to believe that they would acquire rights over the land. The representation can be positive assurances and sometimes even mere silence is enough as long as it led the claimant to believe that they would acquire some rights over the land (ramsden v dyson). The assurance must be a promise (stillwell v simpson) and must express some positive rights in the land (layton v martin). The assurance can be left by will ( re basham) but must come from the owner (western fish products v penwith) and so cannot come from a witness/ tennant (gillet v holt)

Next we must go on to show that there was reliance on the above representation and that there was a change in position by the claimant (inwards v baker). There need not be a physical change in position (campbell v griffin) but leaving ones home to move in with another is sufficient ( maharas v chand). Any financial contribution must be in relation to the property (coombes v smith) and minor repairs are no sufficient (appleby v cowley) 

Lastly we must establish that a detriment was suffered on part of the claimant. The courts will only award a right where a it can be shown that reliance on the representation had left them unconscionably disadvantaged. Detriment need not be purely financial but it must be linked with the belief that it would lead to them to acquire rights in the land (re basham). We must however note that any evidence of an inequity can defeat the claim (seldmore v dalby) 

On the whole it can be established that ______ has a claim in proprietary estoppel over aadils land and so she can seek a remedy

As for remedies available to ______, they range from conveying the land, granting an occupational licence and even monetary compensation. Gillet v holt stated that "it is the job of the court to establish the maximum equity from the estoppel and then form a view as to what the minimum required is in order to satisfy justice between the parties". The court will never award more than necessary (parker v parker) and in some cases can even award less (sledmore v dalby) 

Conveying the estate depends entirely on the representation expressing interest in the estate (pascoe v turner) 

There must be proportionality between the expectation and the detriment (jennings v rice) 

Monetary compensation can be awarded where the financial detriment is relatively small in relation to the value of the property ( dodsworth v dodsworth) 

And occupational licence can also be granted where it would be deemd necessary 
(Greasely v cooke)

Actus reus

What is an Actus Reus?

Criminal law concerns liability that is to be imposed when behaviour goes against what is expected from a normal member of society. The main elements that make up a crime are an Actus reus and Mens rea.

Firstly an Actus reus, put simply, is the Guilty Act and also can be a failure to act (omission). 

Types of Actus Reus:

All acts must be voluntarily committed and the case of Hill v Baxter illustrates an act may be involuntary where a person is attacked by a swarm of bees resulting in a car accident

Action would refer to those crimes that have an act that is immaterial e.g: Perjury is committed when making a statement which is untrue whilst on oath. 

A state of affairs crime is concerned with those that are rather than doing e.g: being in the country illegally - R v Larsonneur

A result crime concerns where an act causes an end result. i.e: for murder, the end result would be the death of the victim 

Omissions

The diagram below illustrates the various ways in which criminal liability can arise where there is a failure to act. Note that the law does not normally impose liability for failures to act. EXCEPT for the example below.

• A duty arising from contract

Where a person is under a contract to act, his failure can be a criminal offence.

R v Pittwood - Gatekeeper omitted to shutting the gate for a railway crossing and so a person was killed. Held guilty for manslaughter as it was the nature of the contract to prevent this from occurring

• A duty owed by parents to their children

Parents are expected by law to look after their children.  This includes feeding them.

R v Gibbins and Proctor - The child's carers failed to feed the  child and so the child died. Both found guilty for murder

• A duty voluntarily undertaken

A duty of care may also exist where there the defendant has voluntarily taken responsibility for the wellbeing of a person.

R v Stone and Dobinson - An assumed responsibility of care meant the death was classified as murder

• A duty to limit accidental harm

Where a person causes accidental damage, he is under a duty to take reasonable steps to limit the spread of the damage.

R v Miller - it was possible to create liability by failing to remedy a dangerous situation that one has oneself created and so was guilty for arson

• A duty to the public

A policeman has a duty of care as the holder of a public office

R v Dytham - Failure to act when witnessing a crime imposed liability as he was in a position which owes a general duty of care towards the public

• A duty arising from a statute

Liability will arise where a statute has imposed a duty to take positive action. This most frequently occurs in relation to road traffic offences. For example The Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes a number of duties to act.  S7(6) makes it an offence to fail to provide a specimen when required to do so. Similarly, it is an offence not to wear a seat belt.

Mens rea

What is a Mens Rea?

Mens rea defined is the 'guilty mind'  and refers to the state of mind the person was in when committing a crime. The state of mind varies from crime to crime but there are two main states of mind which individually or both together constitute the necessary mens rea for a criminal offence: Intention and Recklessness

The difference can be illustrated with one test being subjective (what the actual D was thinking) or objective (what a reasonable person in the D's position would of thought)

Intention

Intention is purely subjective and so focuses on what the particular D was thinking at the time of the event.

There are two types of intention:

Direct: Where the D desired the end result

In R v Mohan, the D accelerated his car towards a police officer causing the V to jump out of the way. It was held that the D must be proved to have specifically intended to cause the V GBH, really serious harm, through driving his car at the officer.

Oblique (Indirect intent): Where the end result is virtually certain but not desired for its own sake

R v Woolin: Woollin was convicted of murdering his three month old son.  He was alleged to have lost his temper and hurled him onto the kitchen floor, causing him to fracture his skull and die.  

The HL said that the jury may find intent on the part of the defendant where:

1. death or gbh was virtually certain to result from the accused’s acts; and

2.  the accused actually foresaw this.

Recklessness (Subjective test following R v G and another)

Recklessness is taking an unjustified risk.  

R v Cunningham

While attempting to steal money from a gas meter, Cunningham ripped the meter off the wall, allowing gas to escape and endanger the life of a neighbour. He could only be found guilty of “maliciously administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life” if he acted deliberately to endanger life, or if he recklessly endangered life.  To be reckless he has to see the risk and then choose to take that risk.  It is conscious risk-taking.  Cunningham was found not guilty as he had not seen the risk involved.

Transferred Malice

Where a person has the mens rea of one crime, and commits the actus reus of the same crime, although not in the way he expected, he can still be found guilty. The rule operates only where it is the same type of offence the D wishes to commit on either the person or object. TM can transfer person to person or object to object.

R v Latimer: There was no requirement that the mens rea of a crime should relate to a named victim and so mens rea could be transferred

R v Pembliton: Mens rea unable to transfer from person to object or object to person. (Stone to window(Criminal damage) not the same as hitting a person(Battery)) 

Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

The defendant must possess the necessary mens rea at the time the actus reus is committed

(a)  the actus reus comes before the mens rea

Sometimes the defendant will argue that he lacked mens rea when he first committed the offence.  In such cases the court will rule that the actus reus is a “continuing act”, and that the defendant is guilty if he had the mens rea at any time during the continuing act.

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - Driving the car onto the constable’s foot and then leaving it there was one continuous act.  He was liable as long as he had the necessary mens rea at some stage during that continuing act.  He formed the mens rea when he decided to leave the car on his foot.

(b)  where the mens rea comes before the actus reus

At other times the defendant will argue that the mens rea came first, but was over before he committed the actus reus.  

Thabo Meli v R - It was enough for the prosecution to show that at some time during this chain of events the defendants had mens rea.

Causation

What is Causation?

In result crimes such as murder it is necessary to show that the unlawful act of the accused actually caused the harm to the victim.  The law operates a two-stage test.  It asks first whether the accused in fact caused the harm (the factual test), and, if so, whether he is liable in law (the legal test).

The Factual Cause

This uses the “but for” test.  In this first test the court will consider whether the harm would have happened “but for” the unlawful action of the accused.  

R v White 

White put some potassium cyanide into his mother’s wine glass, intending to kill her as he would inherit under her will.  In fact, the dose was too small to succeed.  Nevertheless, her body was found soon afterwards on the settee in her living room.  The full glass was next to her, with some of the poisoned drink still in it. Medical evidence showed that she had died of heart failure, not of cyanide poisoning.  Nor was there any link between the poison and the heart attack.

It was decided on appeal that he could not be convicted of murder as he had not caused her death.

R v Pagett - It was decided that the action of the police was foreseeable, and Pagett had therefore caused his girlfriend’s death.

The Legal Cause

Once it has been established that the accused is the factual cause of the harm suffered by the victim, it then has to be shown that he is also the legal cause. This makes sure that people are not found guilty when they are not to blame for the end result.  The court asks whether the defendant’s act continues to make a significant contribution to the end result.

R v Smith - Smith was convicted of murder

The original wound was still an operating and substantial cause at the time of the death.  

However, the chain of causation may be broken, either by the victim or by some unforeseeable event.  

(i) by the victim

The defendant will not be the legal cause if he can show that the victim caused the end result himself.  However, this will only succeed if the victim’s reaction was totally unreasonable.

R v Roberts - The victim jumped out of a car travelling over 20 mph after the driver, who was giving her a lift to a party, told her to undress and grabbed her coat.  He also told her that he had beaten up other girls who had refused.  The question before the CA was whether he was responsible for her injuries. He was responsible as the victim’s reactions were reasonable

Similarly, the chain of causation is not broken by any particular condition of the victim that makes him more susceptible to harm.  Where the victim has a particular susceptibility, for example a thin skull, that makes him particularly susceptible to harm, the defendant must “take his victim as he finds him”.  In other words, he is responsible for all the harm that he causes, even harm he couldn’t have foreseen

R v Blaue - Because of her religious beliefs as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses she refused a blood transfusion which doctors said could have saved her life

People must take their victims as they find them.  This includes their religious beliefs.

(ii) by an unforeseeable event 
In cases of bad medical treatment the accused will rarely escape liability.  However, an example of a case where the defendant succeeded is:

R v Jordan - There had been a series of medical errors, and these had been the sole cause of his victim’s death.  The court said that the medical treatment was “palpably wrong"

Strict liablity

What is Strict Liability?

For some crimes there is no need for the prosecution to prove mens rea. This could be for the whole offence, or for one element of it.  These are known as crimes of strict liability. Most of these have been created by statute.  They are designed to protect the public, and are generally minor offences.

Identifying Strict Liability Offences

There is a presumption in favour of mens rea, and this is especially strong in truly criminal cases. These offences are likely to result in the D receiving a custodial sentence or have a big impact on their lives the courts have held it is less likely for an offence to be classed as strict liability, mens rea must also be proved.:

Sweet v Parsley-Stephanie Sweet was convicted under The Dangerous Drugs Act 1965:  she had sub-let some rooms to students who, unknown to her, smoked cannabis there.  She was convicted of being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis.  On appeal, her conviction was quashed.  The HL decided that this was a “truly criminal” offence and so needed proof of mens rea.

A strict liability offence must be a matter of social concern.  These are normally regulatory offences.

Alphacell Ltd.v Woodward -  The court decided that the defendants had in fact caused the polluted matter to enter the river, and that strict liability applied.  The company was guilty.

Smedleys v Breed - A housewife found a dead caterpillar in a tin of peas she bought from a supermarket.  The HL agreed with the lower courts that this was a strict liability offence, and that it did not matter whether or not Smedleys had taken all reasonable care.

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah - 

The owners of a shop were aware of the rules about the sale of lottery tickets. They put up notices in their shop, and told staff not to sell any tickets to anyone under the age of 16.  Nevertheless one of their staff sold a ticket to an under-age boy, even though he seemed older.  They were guilty: liability was strict. No mens rea was needed for the age of the boy.

Offences - Criminal Justice Act 1988

Assault

Under S39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, assault is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment.  The elements of the offence have been developed at common law.

The actus reus of assault is: an act by D that makes V apprehend immediate, unlawful personal violence

There is no need for any physical contact between defendant and victim

Smith v Superintendent of Woking Police Station - The defendant stood in the garden of his victim, staring through the window at her dressed only in her night-dress.  He was guilty of assault: even though he could not attack her at that very moment, her fear was of something sufficiently immediate and violent.

R v Ireland - Ireland had made a series of unwanted silent telephone calls to three women, causing them to suffer palpitations, cold sweats, anxiety, dizziness and insomnia.  He appealed against his conviction for abh on the ground that he had not committed an assault on the women (as required for conviction for abh).  His conviction was upheld.

The Mens Rea for assault is either intention or Cunningham recklessness

to make his victim apprehend immediate, unlawful violence, or have seen the risk of this and yet gone ahead with his act.

R v Venna - The defendant was arrested after being involved in a fracas with the police during which he had fractured with his foot the hand of one of the officers.  He was convicted of assault occasioning abh.  He appealed on the ground that recklessness was insufficient mens rea for the offence.  It was decided that recklessness was sufficient for the offence.  

Battery

Under Section 39 of The Criminal Justice Act 1988 battery is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or a level 5 fine. The elements of the offence have been developed at common law.

The actus reus of battery is the infliction of unlawful personal violence by the defendant upon the victim

In Cole v Turner  battery was defined as “the least touching of another person in anger”.  This includes the clothes a person wears.  For example, in Thomas  the rubbing of a girl’s skirt was held to be sufficient for a battery. 

A battery can be committed without the defendant touching the victim himself

Fagan v MPC - The defendant accidentally drove his car onto a policeman’s foot and then intentionally left it there.  This was a battery.  The actus reus occurred when Fagan drove onto the policeman’s foot.  The mens rea occurred when he decided to leave the car there.

R v Haystead  – Indirect AR of battery

The defendant committed a battery against a woman when he punched her.  He also committed a battery against her child when it fell out of her arms onto the floor, even though there was no direct contact between Haystead and the child. 

The Mens Rea for battery is intention or recklessness as to causing a battery.

It was said in Venna: “…the element of mens rea in the offence of battery is satisfied by proof that the defendant either intentionally or recklessly applied force to the person of another”.