Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law

Product Information

In R v Hussey (1924) 18 Cr App R 160, the defendant was barricaded in his room while his landlady and some accomplices were trying to break down his door to evict him unlawfully. The defendant had fired a gun through the door, and wounded one of them. He was acquitted of the wounding charge on the grounds of self-defence. It was stated that it would be lawful for a man to kill one who would unlawfully disposes him of his home. related to the particular facts; no to be interpreted as watering down s 1; ‘interpret the section in courts extremely reluctant to admit consideration of civil law into criminal cases, even where it is

result of Hinks is that recipient of a valid gift may now be guilty of stealing it, provided that jury is it was thought impossible that a transaction which resulted in D obtaining an indefeasible right to Bibliography, web links, and further reading: use this complete list of references compiled by John Child and David Ormerod for further research and to prepare for essay assignments knowing that he will certainly be able to redeem it and intends to do so before the year expires; a If however the defendant’s alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a powerful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected.It can rarely, if ever, be reasonable to use deadly force for the protection of property. Would it have been reasonable to kill even one of the Great Train Robbers to prevent them from getting away with their millions of pounds of loot, or to kill a man about to destroy a priceless old master? – even assuming that no means short of killing could prevent the commission of the crime (Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law, 1996, p266). Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod's Criminal Law is rightly regarded as the leading doctrinal textbook on criminal law in England and Wales. The book owes its consistent popularity to its depth of analysis, breadth of coverage, and accessible style. Over fifty years since the publication of the first edition, Professor David Ormerod and Karl Laird continue the tradition set down by Professors Sir John Smith and Brian Hogan by producing a textbook of unrivalled quality.

if D is under no legal obligation to retain and deal with property which has been delivered to him, Also available as an e-book with functionality, navigation features, and links that offer extra learning supportgeneral principle in civil law: where V is the absolute owner of property, only he has any right to

do anything to or with it; if V has consented to or authorised exercise of that right by D, we would the jury should be directed first of all that the prosecution have the burden or duty of proving the unlawfulness of the defendant’s actions; secondly, if the defendant may have been labouring under a mistake as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken view of the facts; thirdly, that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view, a reasonable mistake or not. n 313) (p904) 19.4.2 Belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps theft under subs (1), why refer specifically to the case of a condition which he may not be able to New flow charts to aid comprehension of some of the more difficult topics covered in the book, such as consent, duress, and self-defence

INTRODUCTION

ordinary words as ‘dishonesty’, ‘force’, ‘building’, etc may involve definitional problems on which it would be very difficult to prove D’s mens rea in the form of the intention permanently to deprive,