"these injuries on a 6ft adult would be less serious than on the elderly or someone who is physically or psychiatrically vulnerable. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. Only an intention to kill or cause GBH i s needed to . Learn. convicted of gbh s.18 oapa. In R v Miller the court stated that actual bodily harm was any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. Age and frailty are factors that can be considered when deciding whether injuries are enough to be GBH. Often such injuries did get infected and lead to death. DPP v Smith (2006)- cutting Vs hair. It was held on appeal that in the circumstances it was unnecessary to define malicious as harm was clearly intended, however Diplock LJ in obiter offered guidance in relation to the meaning of malicious under s.20 stating at paragraph 426. Assault occasioning ABH is defined as an assault which causes Bodily Harm (ABH). Summary Week 1 Summary of the article "The Relationship between Theory and Policy in International Relations" by Stephen Walt, Critically analyse and compare Plato and Aristotles concept of the body and soul, 3 Phase Systems Tutorial No 1 Solutions v1 PDF, Pdf-order-block-smart-money-concepts compress, 04a Practice papers set 2 - Paper 1H - Solutions, Faktor-faktor yang mengakibatkan peristiwa 13 Mei 1969. This was the situation until R v Martin (1881) 8 QBD 54. Learn. Breaking only one layer of skin would be insufficient, such as a cut to the inside of someones cheek. He suffered genital herpes, but had unprotected sex and acknowledged acting recklessly. any person with intent to do some GBH to any person, or with intent to resist arrest or prevent This does not marry up to wounding as society would understand it to be. R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 Whether a jury may consider a victim's particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. protected from the offender. Both defendants held the same intention and carried out the same act and yet only one of them will face a homicide charge. such as discharge-this is when the court decides someone is guilty of an offence, but In a problem question make sure to establish this point where a minor wound occurs as you need to show the examiner that you appreciate the difference between the Charging Standards and the binding legal definition of a wound. In the meantime, another student used the hand-drier and was sprayed with the acid, causing injury. Intention can be direct or indirect. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Sometimes it is possible that an assault can be negated. If the defendant intended to cause the harm, then he obviously intended to cause some harm. He put on a scary mask It is not unforeseeable that one of these will die as a result of the punch and sadly this often happens. Protect the public from the offender and from the risk of The injuries consisted of various bruises and abrasions. The aim of sentencing an offender is to punish the offender which can include going to This definition may seem surprising as it does not follow the usual understanding of wound which implies a more serious level of harm than a mere split in the skin, for which a pin prick could qualify. The harm can result from physical violence, could include psychiatric harm and could even be cause by the victims own actions, where they try to escape from the apprehended unlawful force of the defendant. Notably however, in the instance case, the defendants conviction for GBH under s. 18 was lessened to a charge of ABH under s. 47 as expert medical testimony suggested that the injuries sustained by the victim likely occurred over a prolonged period of time, rather than in the course of a single event, as would be necessary for a finding of GBH. We do not provide advice. 25% off till end of Feb! and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. The draft Bill actually sets out a definition of injury in order to provide clear and specific, legally binding guidance as to what this entails. voluntary act and omission is that it does not make an individual liable for a criminal act D must cause the GBH to the victim. Accordingly, inflict can be taken to mean the direct or indirect application of force, or the causing of psychiatric harm. R v Chan Fook (1994) Psychiatric harm can amount to ABH (however mere emotions can not) . When that level of harm is inflicted on a person it is often left to fate as to whether or not it will prove fatal. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? For the purposes of the provisions injury would encompass physical injury, such as pain, unconsciousness and any impairment to physical condition, as well as mental injury which would include any impairment of a persons mental health, The draft Bill expressly defines intention and recklessness and states that for the purposes of the offences the harm intended or foreseen must related to the act committed, which would overturn the law established in. R V Bollom (2004) D caused multiple bruises to a young baby. His disturbing and relentless behaviour caused the victim to suffer from severe depression, insomnia and panic attacks. The act itself does not constitute guilt Significance of V's age. (DPP V Smith, R V Bollom) Mens rea: intention or recklessness to cause some harm (R V Parmenter) Malicious wounding section 20 offences against the Person act 1861 crimes where the actus reus of the offence requires proof that the conduct caused a crime. and it must be a voluntary act that causes damage or harm. The defendant appealed contending that it was necessary to establish a subjective appreciation of the risk and not an objective ruling that he should have foreseen the risk of injury. Whether a jury may consider a victims particular sensitivities and characteristics in assessing the extent of harm. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. unless done with a guilty mind. These include: It can be seen from the list above that aside from broken bones, there is a reluctance to provide specific injuries and the focus instead is on the impact of the injury rather than the injury itself. Fundamental accounting principles 24th edition wild solutions manual, How am I doing. R v Bollom (2014) 'In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of the effect of the harm on the individual. loss etc. directed by the doctor. A fine and compensation-fines are the most common R v Barnes (2005)- broken nose The defendant was charged with the s.20 offence but argued that he had not inflicted the GBH suffered by his victim on her in accordance with the Wilson understanding of the term as he had at no point applied any force to her, either directly or indirectly. statutory definition for assault or battery. times. His appeal was allowed, holding that the correct interpretation of maliciously for the purposes of s.20 is intent or a subjective appreciation of the risk of harm and being reckless as to that harm occurring. This provision refers to causing serious injury and makes no reference to inflicting, wounding or bodily harm. Intention to do some grievous bodily harm. 43 Q What is the mens rea for section 20 GBH? The first point is that the apprehension being prevented must be lawful. restricting their activities or supervision by probation. After all, inflicting the same injuries to a strong and healthy 21 year old and a frail 90 year old will usually result in very different levels of harm and so the law should reflect this. Each of these offences requires both actus reus and mens rea to be established. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. This is known as indirect or oblique intention. In-house law team. Finally, the force which is threatened must be unlawful. The actus reus of a s offence is identical to the actus reus of a s offence. If the injuries are serious and permanent then they will amount to GBH, however permanence is not a pre requisite of GBH. This was changed in R v Saunders, where the word really was removed from the definition so as to clarify the nature of the offence. Check out Adapt the A-level & GCSE revision timetable app. In R v Constanza, the defendant wrote the victim letters which caused the victim to feel threatened, either now or in the future. Furthermore, that they intended some injury or were reckless as to the injury being caused. R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was And lastly make the offender give Assault occurswhen a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence. Per Fulford J: We have no doubt that in determining the gravity of these injuries, it was necessary to consider them in their real context. ([]). This may be because it is impossible for the threat to be carried out. The positi, defendant's actions. Hide Show resource information. merely transient and trifling, The word harm is a synonym for injury. who is elderly and bed bound, has suffered injuries as a consequence of not being turned as shouted boo. In this case the defendant passed gonorrhoea to two children through poor hygiene. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes Reduce Facts. 44 Q The offence of battery is also defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 39. Consent is no defence to inflicting actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or wounding i.e., ss 20 and 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA) . This is well illustrated by DPP v Smith, where the defendant cut off the victims pony tail and some hair from the top of her head without her consent. Costco The Challenge Of Entering The Mainland China Market Case Study Solution & Analysis, Acoples-storz - info de acoples storz usados en la industria agropecuaria. To prove the offence, it must be shown that the defendant wounded or inflicted grievous bodily harm. There must be an intent to cause really serious bodily injury. In light of these considerations, the correct approach is therefore to conduct an independent assessment of all the facts on a case by case basis. AR for battery = 'ABH is harm or injury calculated to interfere with health or comfort' - hysterical and nervous condition created by Miller from his beating, amounting to ABH, ABH/GBH can be psychiatric (affecting the brain) - no need for the harm to be visible, not the case with psychological issues -rang people then was silent, psychiatric problems can constitute ABH, not psychological - no evidence that he had assaulted her, causing ABH, the great stress that she had suffered lead to her suicide, this was insufficient, mens rea for ABH, just intent/recklessness for underlying assault or battery - intended to pour beer over women, using constructive liability she had the intent to cause the harm in ABH (cut by the glass), GBH is 'really serious' bodily harm - with policeman chasing him on Bonnet, D knocked policemen into path of oncoming driver, killing - used virtual certainty test for murder (what reasonable person), whether bodily harm is grievous is based on the individual - D convicted of GBH under s.18 for injuries he inflicted on his partner's 17 month old daughter - assess individual situation - could not prove it was all from one offence, lesser offence of ABH was used, harm need not be permanent or dangerous and is done in individual cases, psychiatric harm can amount to bodily harm, word inflict means 'cause' can be direct or direct -stalked her, had serious condition, those who recklessly transmit HIV and inflict GBH w/o consent is guilty under s.20 (only liable if foresaw possibility of passing on GBH) (however small) - despite no assault battery GBH made out, did not intend to maliciously poison - did not foresee, was just wanting money from gas meter - no ABH/GBH, to be liable under s.20 must intend/foresee SOME harm (not full extent) - did not foresee ANY harm, lacked mens rea, but did intend battery so can be liable under s.47 - not as hard as s.20 to prove - MUST IN OWN MIND FORESEE), consent only stands as a defence when the activity was carried out for good reason e.g. The victim had been a 17 month old child who had received bruising and abrasions to her body arms and legs. take victim as you find them, bruising can be GBH. R v Hill (2015)- broken cheekbone, Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause GBH to 26, Edis J (giving the judgment of the Court) said that R v Smith (Kim) "supports the proposition that this is the purpose of the tainted gift regime. The defendant appealed against his conviction for causing grievous bodily harm. more crimes being committed by them. The Court of Appeal therefore substituted a conviction for section 20 __GBH rather than section 18. Martin, R v (1881) 8 QBD 54; Thomas, R v (1985) Subscribe on YouTube. The appellant ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. R v Tierney (2009): on a s charge, a conviction of assault or battery is an alternative R v Belfon Judgment Weekly Law Reports Cited authorities 14 Cited in 15 Precedent Map Related Vincent Categories Tort Negligence Practice and Procedure Hearing Damages and Restitution Injuries Crime and Sentencing Offences against the Person [1976] EWCA Crim J0319-9 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Before: Psychiatric injury can amount to GBH - 'the woman was diagnosed with having a severe depressive illness' . fight is NOT one, must be a good reason for activity for consent to be a defence - HofL held sado-masochisitc behaviour was not one, - had agreement to act itself, activity (battery under s47) did cause harm so cannot rely on consent? The statutory policy is to apply pressure to those who have dissipated (or more usually laundered) their assets during a . FREE courses, content, and other exciting giveaways. This was decided in the case of __DPP __v Smith, where the level of injury was said to be really serious harm. In relation to this element of the mens rea, it is necessary for the prosecution also to prove the maliciously element. He had touched himself and then failing to wash his hands had cared for the children in assisting with washing and dressing them, causing them to contract the disease. is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant), R v Roberts (1972)- concussion; grazes imprisonment or a large sum of fine. This was affirmed in the case of R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193 which considered the meaning of maliciously specifically in relation to the s.20 offence. Several people were severely injured as a result of the defendants actions and he was charged under s.20 OAPA 1861. Section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 provides: Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any person, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony. prison, doing unpaid work in the community, obeying a curfew or paying a fine. The House held that It was not necessary to demonstrate the defendant had the mens rea in relation to level of harm inflicted. With regards to consent, R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 and Attorney Generals Reference no. intended, for example R v Nedrick (1986). where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. Test. Case in Focus: R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396. This was reckless as proven by the actus reus but the mens rea which is the intention In R v Ireland, it was silent phone calls which the court determined as the actus reus of an assault. Crimes can be divided into two categories: Conduct crimes, where the actus reus is the illegal conduct itself. It Is certain rules to comply, if they dont they may be sentenced. Held: The judge had been correct to say that what constituted grievous bodily harm had to be looked at in the context of the person harmed. Match. Actual bodily harm. However, following R v Woollin [1999] AC 82 the jury can find intention where although the result was not the exact desired consequence held by a defendant, it could be appreciated by the defendant himself that it was a virtually certain consequence of his act. Intention to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person. Q1 - Write a summary about your future Higher Education studies by answering the following questions. Grievous bodily harm/Wounding is also defined in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Project Log book - Mandatory coursework counting towards final module grade and classification. R v Jones and Others (1986)- broken nose and ruptured spleen jail. Inflict for this purpose simply means cause. R v Chan-Fook (1994)- psychiatric injury, but not mere emotions On this basis the jury convicted and the defendant appealed. whether such harm would be caused., Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously inflict any grievous bodily harm on another Actus reus is the the individual, R v Billinghurst (1978)- broken jaw Case in Focus: R v Savage [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. TJ. assessment of harm done in an individual case in a contested trial will be a matter for the jury, As the amount of hair was substantial, the Divisional Court decided that the hair-cutting should amount to ABH. Case Summary - playing with fire proof suits, if self-administered, this breaks the chain of causation, substance noxious so long as it irritates another - can be so small a dose that add up, did not foresee actions causing harm =NO MR, unlawful act of administering noxious substance caused death -, best interests defence, unable to make decision themselves - woman mentally handicapped, sexual urges but did not understand pregnancy, would be traumatic - didn't want to separate from male (sterilised her in best interest), best interests - donate bone marrow to sister so she lives and can visit - cannot consent nor understand the circumstances, Caesarean in bet interest (was actually a battery), abolish defence of chastisement - charged with inflicting GBH, used defence - inhumane - may cases - should change legislation. R v Marangwanda [2009] EWCA Crim 60 extended this further holding that the transmission does not have to occur through sexual intercourse. 2. His actus reus was pushing PC Adamski over and his mens rea was . A Direct intention (R v Mohan) or recklessness (R v Cunningham) as to cause some harm (R v Mowatt). Entertainment the Painful Process of Rethinking Consent, https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/the-role-and-extent-of-criminal-sanctions-in-sport#references, The Regulation of on-the-ball Offences: Challenges in Court, Perceptions of Playing Culture in Sport: The Problem of Diverse Opinion in the Light of Barnes. They can include words, actions, or even silence! establish the mens rea of murd er (R v Vick ers [1957]). He said that the prosecution had failed to . Should we take into consideration how vulnerable the victim is? applying contemporary social standards, In deciding whether injuries are grievous, an assessment has to be made of the effect of the harm on The mens rea of s is exactly the same as assault and battery. Restorative justice gives victims the chance to tell offenders about the impact of their crime A two-inch bruise for example on said 20-year-old might be painful but not really serious, whereas on a new born baby this would likely be indicative of a very severe risk to the health of the child. Key point. PC Adamski required brain surgery after being pushed over and banging his head on a curb Battery is the physical extension to assault and not only includes violence, but can mean any unwanted touching. foresee a risk or result and unreasonably go on to take the risk. In Collins v Wilcock, the defendant was a police officer who took hold of a womans arm in order to prevent her walking away from him as he was questioning her about alleged prostitution. Facts The defendant inflicted various injuries upon his partner's seventeen month old child, including bruises and cuts. committing similar offences. Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01. for a discharge or a fine but not so serious that a sentence must be given. unsatisfactory on the basis that it is unclear, uses old language and is structurally flawed. indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. whilst attempting to arrest Janice.-- In Janices case, he is at fault here by hurng an officer of Bollom [2003]). It should be noted that the if the defendant intended injury, they do not have to have intended serious injury. He was charged with the offence of administering a noxious substances s.23 Act which required the defendant to maliciously administer a noxious thing to endanger life or inflict GBH. -- R v Bollom -- V's age and health should be taken into consideration when deciding if an injury can amount to GBH or not D must CAUSE V's wound: factual causation with BUT FOR and Pagett legal causation with OPERATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL and Smith D must also cause V's GBH: both as above however indirect intention is wanting to do something but the result was not what it was Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. R v Savage (1991): The prosecution is not obliged to prove that D intended to cause some ABH or was reckless as to MR don't need to foresee serious injury, just some . Lastly a prison sentence-prison R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23 presupposed that inflict required an assault to occur, and thus a husband who gave his wife a sexually transmitted disease could not be guilty as she did not know he had the disease and consented to the contact, negating the assault. be not directing Oliver to the doctors and her mens rea is that she couldn't be bothered to If there is no wound as per the Eisenhower definition, then this does not negate the actus reus of the offence. This was decided in R v Burstow, where the victim suffered sever depression as a result of being stalked by the defendant. To conclude, the OAPA clearly remains to be In DPP v K, a schoolboy hid acid in a hand-drier, intending to remove it later. There must be a cut to the whole of the skin so that the skin is no longer intact. R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615 . mens rea would be trying to scare her as a practical joke. The meaning of the word inflict has caused some confusion over the years. Test. community sentence-community sentences are imposed for offences which are too serious If the GBH or wound is caused when the defendant is intending to resist an unlawful arrest, then this will be insufficient to satisfy the mens rea of the offence. How much someone is verdict 41 Q Which case said that GBH can be committed indirectly? The offence does not have to be life-threatening and can include many minor injuries, not just one major one. The defendant made it clear that it was never her intention to actually throw the glass or harm the victim in anyway. crime by preventing the offender from committing more crime and putting others off from criminal sentence. For the purposes of intention to cause GBH the maliciously element of the mens rea imposes no further requirement. Are there any more concerns with these that you can identify yourself? Created by. There is criticism with regards to the definition of wounding which can be satisfied by a very low level of harm, for example a paper cut. For example, hitting them or pushing them would suffice but chasing them and causing them to run into a wall or fall into a pit would not. At trial the judge directed the jury that must convict if the defendant should have foreseen that the handling of his infant son would result in some harm occurring to the child. Looking to the enactment year of the Offences Against the Persons Act, which was back in 1861, provides some explanation as to why the two are treated with the same severity. fined depends on how severe the crime is and the offenders ability to pay. One new video every week (I accept requests and reply to everything!) Reckless __GBH __is defined under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and simply requires that the defendant was subjectively reckless as to some harm occurring as a result of their actions or omissions. Since this act was established in the 1800s it may not apply to crimes today. R v Saunders (1985)- broken nose To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below: Free law resources to assist you with your LLB or SQE studies! Due to his injury, he may experience memory Another way in which battery can occur is indirectly. apply the current law on specific non-fatal offences to each of the given case studies. R v Bollom (2004) R v Dica (2004) JCC v Eisenhower (1983) R v Burstow (1997) R v Dica (2004) MR Intention or subjective recklessness to cause some harm R v Parmenter (1991) Trial and sentencing Triable either way offence - In Crown or Magistrates - Max sentence 5 years custodial LIST OF CASES, STATUTES AND STATUTORy INSTRUMENTS VII R v Brown [1993] UKHL 19 72, 74 R v Catt [2013] EWCA Crim 1187 6 R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 74 R v Bollom. Law; Criminal law; A2/A-level; OCR; Created by: 10dhall; Created on: 15-06-17 21:14; What happened in this case? For example, a defendant punches a thin pain of glass that the victim is standing behind, intending to break the glass but realising that in doing that it is virtually certain that he will hit the victim, even though this is not his primary intention. Only full case reports are accepted in court. Case in Focus: R v Ireland and Burstow [1997] UKHL 34. GBH = serious psychiatric injury. Result, crimes where the actus reus of the offence requi, as directed.-- In Beth's case, she is a care professional who has a duty to look after her, patients and direct them to the doctors when needed, because of Beths carelessne, indirectly injured her patient and breached her duty of care. Case in Focus: R v Brown and Stratton [1988] Crim LR 484. The Court of Appeal held this was a misdirection as it did not correctly state that malicious included recklessness and that this is decided subjectively. R. v. Ireland; R. v. Burstow. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! was required a brain surgery which is a severe case. Any other such detainment is unlikely to be lawful. Looking for a flexible role? The officer cut her finger on the needle and the defendant was found by the court to be liable for battery, due to the omission. Theyre usually given for less serious crimes. The intention element of the mens rea is important in relation to where a wound occurs as it shows causing a wound with intention merely to wound as per the Eisenhower definition will not suffice. another must be destroyed or damaged. Case in Focus: R v Parmenter [1991] 94 Cr App R 193. This is an application referred to the Full Court by the Registrar for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. This case exemplifies the type of harm that will be considered as GBH. malicious and not intended to hurt Zika, he has now caused her an injury by scaring her. Pay attention to this section as for an essay question you may be asked to provide a discussion as to the meaning of inflict. as directed.-- In Beth's case, she is a care professional who has a duty to look after her R v Bollom would back this case as her injury was serious. The answer heavily relies on the implied sporting consent principle. The non-fatal offences that I will describe in this video are assault, battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm/wounding. Battery occurs whena person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another. Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. The defendant was out in the pub when she saw her husbands ex-girlfriend. Despite being originally held not to be so in the case of R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23, following R v Dica [2004] 3 ALL ER 593 Inflict now also encompasses the transmission of sexual diseases, such as HIV, where these are serious enough to be constituted as GBH, and the defendant is aware that there is a risk that they are suffering from the disease (R v Adaye (2004) unreported). words convey in their ordinary meaning. Reform and rehabilitate offenders by changing an offenders The Court of Appeal held these injuries were justly described as GBH. For example, the actus reus of the offence of criminal damage is that property belonging to ), Criminal Law (Robert Wilson; Peter Wolstenholme Young), Rang & Dale's Pharmacology (Humphrey P. Rang; James M. Ritter; Rod J. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. Tel: 0795 457 9992, or email david@swarb.co.uk, Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd: 1978, Lamb v Camden London Borough Council: 1981, British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots Association: QBD 23 Jul 2019, Wright v Troy Lucas (A Firm) and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2019, Hayes v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax Loan Interest Relief Disallowed): FTTTx 23 Jun 2020, Ashbolt and Another v Revenue and Customs and Another: Admn 18 Jun 2020, Indian Deluxe Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Other): FTTTx 5 Jun 2020, Productivity-Quality Systems Inc v Cybermetrics Corporation and Another: QBD 27 Sep 2019, Thitchener and Another v Vantage Capital Markets Llp: QBD 21 Jun 2019, McCarthy v Revenue and Customs (High Income Child Benefit Charge Penalty): FTTTx 8 Apr 2020, HU206722018 and HU196862018: AIT 17 Mar 2020, Parker v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary: CA 25 Jun 1999, Christofi v Barclays Bank Plc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Demite Limited v Protec Health Limited; Dayman and Gilbert: CA 24 Jun 1999, Demirkaya v Secretary of State for Home Department: CA 23 Jun 1999, Aravco Ltd and Others, Regina (on the application of) v Airport Co-Ordination Ltd: CA 23 Jun 1999, Manchester City Council v Ingram: CA 25 Jun 1999, London Underground Limited v Noel: CA 29 Jun 1999, Shanley v Mersey Docks and Harbour Company General Vargos Shipping Inc: CA 28 Jun 1999, Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999, Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council: CA 25 Jun 1999, Chilton v Surrey County Council and Foakes (T/A R F Mechanical Services): CA 24 Jun 1999, Oliver v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council: CA 23 Jun 1999, Regina v Her Majestys Coroner for Northumberland ex parte Jacobs: CA 22 Jun 1999, Sheriff v Klyne Tugs (Lowestoft) Ltd: CA 24 Jun 1999, Starke and another (Executors of Brown decd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 23 May 1995, South and District Finance Plc v Barnes Etc: CA 15 May 1995, Gan Insurance Company Limited and Another v Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited: CA 28 May 1999, Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 5 Jun 1995, London Borough of Bromley v Morritt: CA 21 Jun 1999, Kuwait Oil Tanker Company Sak; Sitka Shipping Incorporated v Al Bader;Qabazard; Stafford and H Clarkson and Company Limited; Mccoy; Kuwait Petroleum Corporation and Others: CA 28 May 1999, Worby, Worby and Worby v Rosser: CA 28 May 1999, Bajwa v British Airways plc; Whitehouse v Smith; Wilson v Mid Glamorgan Council and Sheppard: CA 28 May 1999.

Central Pneumatic 21 Gallon Air Compressor Parts Diagram, Martin County Sheriff Mn, Hit Em Where They Ain't Bull Durham, Dirty Dirty Dish Rag Rhyme, Articles R