| Adler v George (1964) | `Golden rule': `in vicinity of' can be read as `in' |
| Associated Provincial Picture House v Wednesbury Corporation (1947) | Administrative decision ultra vires if indedensibly unreasonable |
| Observer and Guardian v UK (1992) (`Spycatcher case') | restriction of press freedom cannot be justified on security grounds if no actual risk exists |
| Bentley v Brudzinski (1982) | unjustified detention is not a `duty' of a constable |
| Broome v Cassell (1972) | House of Lords asserts its decisions binding on Court of Appeal |
| Castorina v CC Surrey (1988) | Whether there are `reasonable grounds' for arrest does not require near-certainty of guilt |
| Chappell and Whitley (1868) | `Literal rule': impersonating a dead person is not impersonating a person entitled to vote |
| Christie v Leachinsky (1947) | A person has a right to know why he is being arrested |
| Condron v UK (2001) | Jury should be given an opportunity to consider whether defendant's refusal to answer questions has reasonable grounds |
| Donnelly v Jackman (1970) | Not every trivial interference with liberty constitutes an arrest |
| Grey v Pearson (1870) | `Golden rule': statute may be read to as to avoid absurdity |
| Factortame v Secretary of State for Transport #1 (1989) | EU regulations must be given priority of domestic law |
| G v DPP (1997) | Whether there are `reasonable grounds' for arrest must be objectively reasonable |
| Heydon's case (1584) | Establishes the `mischief rule' |
| John Lewis v Tims (1952) | Citizen's arrest not rendered unlawful if arrestee not delivered to police immediately |
| Kenlin v Gardiner (1967) | There is no power of detention short of arrest |
| Magor and St Mellons RDC v Newport Corp (1950) | Lord Denning's famous attempt to introduce a more purposive reading of statute; overruled by House of Lords |
| Miliangos v George Frank Textiles (1967) | Damages can be awarded in currency other than sterling (House or Lords departing from its own precedent) |
| Pepper v Hart (1994) | Courts can consult Hansard |
| R v Alladice (1998) | Wrongful delay in access to legal advice does not automatically render evidence inadmissible |
| R v Allen (1872) | `Golden rule': `married' can be read as `having gone through a ceremony of marriage' |
| R v Argent (1996) | Inferences only drawn from silence under s.34 CJPOA if suspect cautioned |
| R v Aziz (1995) | A statement that contains both incriminating and exculpatory elements should be presented as a whole to the jury |
| R v Badham (1987) | PACE s.32 does not give an open-ended right to return to the place of the arrest and search it |
| R v Chandler (1976) | Refusal to answer questions before caution not evidence of guilt |
| R v Cowan (1995) | CJPOA s.34 does not abolish the `right to silence', and does not apply only in exceptional cases |
| R v Danvers (1982) | Jury need not be racially balanced |
| R v Dunford (1982) | Breach of s.54 PACE does not automatically engage s.78 if suspect would have been aware of his legal rights |
| R v Fennelly (1989) | Failure to give grounds for search renders it unlawful |
| R v Goldenberg (1988) | s.76 PACE not engaged when confession unreliable by the accused's drug addiction |
| R v Harris (1836) | `Literal rule': `Stab, cut, or wound', does not include use of teeth |
| R v Home Secretary ex p Venables and Thomspson (1997) | Home Secretary should not set sentence tarifs |
| R v Judge of the City of London Court (1891) | Lord Esher's famous statement of the literal rule: statute must be followed even if absurd |
| R v Lemsatef (1976) | No power to detain to `Help police with their enquiries' |
| R v Mason (1988) | Evidence accepted under s.76 PACE not automatically excluded from consideration under s.78 |
| R v Miller (1976) | Whether police questioning `oppresive' does not depend on the characteristics of the suspect |
| R v Sang (1980) | Evidence gather unlawfully not automatically excluded; prejudicial effect must outweigh probative value |
| R v Samuel (1988) | Power to delay legal advice to detainee requires grounds to believe that advisor will, not might, interfere with justice |
| R v Parris (1989) | Power to delay legal advice to detainee unlikely to be justified when the advisor is the duty solicitor |
| R v Self (1992) | Citizen's arrest unlawful where no offence is found to have been committed |
| R v Sharp (1988) | A statement that contains both incriminating and exculpatory elements should be presented as a whole to the jury |
| R v Spencer (1987) | In principle, criminal division of Court of Appeal is bound by its prior decisions |
| Rice v Connelly (1967) | No general duty to answer questions from police; refusal does not amount to obstruction of the police |
| Ricketts v Cox (1982) | Refusal to answer questions, together with conduct, may amount to obstruction |
| Rondel v Worsely (1969) | Person convicted cannot reopen proceedings by suing his own lawyers for negligence |
| Spicer v Holt (1977) | Arrest is a factual matter, signalled by deprivation of liberty, not a theorectical one |
| SW v UK (1996) | Conviction for martial rape upheld, despite that it was not an offence at the time of commission |
| Walter v WH Smith (1914) | Citizen's arrest unlawful where no offence is found to have been committed |
| Willis v Baddeley (1892) | There is no `judge-made law' |
| Young and Bristol Aeroplane (1944) | Court of Appeal bound by own decisions, except where (i) per incuriam or (ii) overruled by HoL or (iii) precendents are in conflict |
©1994-2003 Kevin Boone, all rights reserved