Can you give me some English Criminal Law cases that have happend?

Im doing AS Level Law, and one of my assignments is to find 3 cases of Criminal Law, such as a murder case or whatever, and then write about it. Can you give me a few cases that have happend and have been been resolved?





If you could give me a case or two that isn't criminal law, that would be great too.





An example would be ';R vs. ???';Can you give me some English Criminal Law cases that have happend?
If you want some cases that are not criminal matters, how about Prince Albert v Strange 1849. This case is very important on two counts. Firstly, there is no ';right to privacy'; in English law, but there is perhaps some moderate right under this case using a writ for ';breach of confidence';. Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband) entrusted the defendant with some private family photographs, which he then tried to publish. The Prince won. The case is also peculiar because of who the plaintiff was. Monarchs are constitutionally unable to sue, or to be sued, and cannot be prosecuted, as all the courts sit in the name of the monarch (notice in the criminal cases they are cited in the form ';R v Smith';, the ';R'; being ';regina';, Latin for queen. If the monarch was male it would still be R for Rex.





I wonder how much royal interference there was in Prince Albert's case? Our very own Elizabeth II has personally intervened in a criminal case recently, in R v Burrell. Paul Burrell, the former butler of Princess Diana, was accused of theft of her belongings. At the eleventh hour the queen intervened and stopped the prosecution. A very unusual step.





But the one civil case ALL law students in England must know is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1892. This contract law case centred on a crackpot quack flu remedy, popular at the time - the carbolic smoke ball. You were meant to inhale fumes from the ball to prevent flu. The company placed an advert offering a 拢100 reward to anyone who caught flu after using the ball as directed for a week, and deposited a large some of money in a bank to guarantee the promise. Mrs Carlill used it and caught flu. The defendent contended she could not sue, because they had not made an offer to her personally, and that the advert was ';mere puff'; (over exaggerated advertising). But it was held that an advert making an offer to the whole world is an offer to anyone who sees it or has knowledge of it, and that the only acceptance needed was the act of following the instruction in the offer. Buying and using the ball was good consideration on Mrs Carlill's part, and the deposit to guarantee the deposit indicated an intention to be legally bound. Mrs Carlill died in 1942 at the ripe old age of 96, ironically of flu.Can you give me some English Criminal Law cases that have happend?
How about ';R. v M'Naghton';.





This is a case from 1843 where Daniel M'Naghton killed the Prime Ministers secretary while attempting to kill the Prime Minister himself. It resulted in the formalization of the rules for a jury to consider when examining an insanity defense. Those rules stood in all common law countries including the USA until 2006 when the US Supreme Court ruled in ';Clark v. Arizona'; that Arizona's decision to not allow insanity defenses was not unconstitutional.





Richard
regina vs bradford city plc
For this assignment you ought to find more famous cases, that have actually changed our criminal law. M'Naghten is one, but the criminal case from my first year at university that most sticks in the brain is R v Brown.





http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/R_v._Brown


http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992鈥?/a>





It involved sado-masochists injuring each other quite severely, but with everyone consenting. The court held that some activities might be consensual, but it's still unlawful to injure someone if the consent isn't in the public interest. It might be interesting for you to comment that this case might not be decided the same way today, given greater tolerance towards consensual and private sexual activity. On the other hand, and under the law of unintended consequences, I've seen it successful argued that the case is authority for a court to ignore possible consent in the setting of domestic violence in abusive relationships - and I'm not sure many of us would disagree with that.





The other good one to choose would be R v R, that changed the ancient law that a man cannot be found guilty of raping his wife.


http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/rvr.ht鈥?/a>





You could also comment that this case is a very rare case of something being criminalised retrospectively. A very important principle is that you cannot have retrospective criminal legislation. If I do something that's legal today, you can't pass a law to say that in fact it was illegal when I did it. R v R was, I think, appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on that basis, but the Defendant lost. The rule that you can't rape your wife was held to have been a complete legal fiction for years, and he should have known it was illegal.
R v AHLUWALIA [1992]


On 25 September 1992 Mrs Kiranjit Ahluwalia aged 36 walked free from the Central Criminal Court after a re-trial which had been ordered by the Court of Appeal following a conviction for murder in 1989. The Court of Appeal, (1992) The Times, September 8, considered it expedient in the interests of justice to use powers under s.23(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to admit fresh evidence of her endogenous depression. She had served three years and four months.


She had been found guilty of the murder of her husband by a 10 to 2 majority, after a seven-day trial on her plea of manslaughter, but not guilty to murder, which was unacceptable to the prosecution. She threw petrol in his bedroom setting it alight. He sustained burns from which he died six days later.





At the re-trial the prosecution said they now accepted her plea of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, a defence not put forward at the original trial.





The case raises important questions about provocation; at the re-trial the judge said her new plea was accepted on the strength of fresh evidence of Ahluwalia's mental health, not on the grounds of provocation.





Ahluwalia suffered violence and abuse from the onset of the marriage. He was a big man and she was slight. Her complaints of violence were supported by entries in her doctor's notes. She discovered he was having an affair; he refused to talk about it and threatened her with a hot iron. He also demanded 拢200 the next morning or he would beat her.





She went to bed about midnight, was unable to sleep and brooded on his refusal to speak to her and threat to beat her in the morning. She had bought a can of petrol and had put it in the lean-to outside the house. At some time after 2.30 am, she got up went downstairs, poured about two pints of petrol into a bucket to make it easier to throw, lit a candle and carried them upstairs, taking an oven glove for protection and a stick.





She went to the bedroom, threw in some petrol, lit the stick from the candle and threw it into the room.





At the trial no medical evidence of her condition was adduced. Her defence was that she did not intend to kill or cause serious harm; only to inflict pain. Provocation was a secondary line of defence.





Three grounds of appeal were raised. The fist two related to the Judge's directions on provocation, the third not raised at the trial was diminished responsibility.





i knew of this case when i did law, so might come in handy with you, ive got a law txtbook lying around sumwhere, ill find it, just email tasha.clark45@yahoo.com as got plenty more cases, dun law coursework and saved on computer :) gd luck