Free UK Criminal Law Study Guide

Overview

Our free UK Criminal Law notes provide a comprehensive guide to understanding the key principles and cases in criminal law. Whether you're studying for exams or simply want to learn more, these notes will help you understand concepts such as actus reus, mens rea, homicide, non-fatal offences, property offences, sexual offences, defences, and more. If you think something could be improved, let us know, and we'll take a look.

1. General Principles

Components of Crime

• Latin Judicial Terms - Explains commonly used Latin expressions in criminal law.
• Components of Crime - Summarizes the fundamental building blocks (actus reus and mens rea).
• Understanding Burden of Proof - Explores how the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Actus Reus

Voluntariness

• R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App Rep 74 - Addresses state of affairs offences where the defendant’s presence in a situation was involuntary.
• Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91 (HL) - Considers the issue of driving without full conscious awareness.

Omissions

• R v Allen [1872] LR 1 CCR 367 - Early illustration of liability founded on statutory duty.
• R v Pittwood [1902] TLR 37 - Liability for failing to perform a contractual duty leading to harm.
• R v Gibbins & Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134 - Omissions liability arising from a special relationship (parent/child).
• Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 (HL) - Omitting medical treatment; end-of-life decisions in criminal law context.
• R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 - Duty to act arising from creating a dangerous situation.
• R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354 - Liability arising from assuming responsibility for a vulnerable individual.

Causation

• Causation in Criminal Law - Overview of factual and legal causation.
• R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 - Landmark ruling on substantial and operating cause.
• R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152 - Medical negligence breaking the chain of causation.
• R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446 - Thin skull rule; defendant must take the victim as found.
• R v Roberts [1972] 56 Cr App R 95 - Victim’s escape attempt and foreseeability in causation.
• R v Pagett [1983] 76 Cr App R 279 - Legal causation where a third party acts in response to the defendant’s threat.
• R v Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690 - Wound reopening by the victim and causation.
• R v Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35 - De minimis principle in legal causation.
• R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38 - Clarifies causation in drug-supply scenarios.
• R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56 - Examines causation where the defendant’s conduct may not be blameworthy.
• R v Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690 - Liability for acts or omissions leading a victim to seek euthanasia abroad.
• R v Codere (1916) 12 Cr App R 21 - Mistake of fact and its impact on causation analysis.
• R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 - Medical treatment as a possible intervening act, emphasizing it must be “so independent” of defendant’s actions.
• R v Malcherek [1981] 2 All ER 422 - Switching off life support and the chain of causation.

Mens Rea

• Mens Rea - Outlines the mental element in criminal liability.

Intention

• R v Steane [1947] KB 997 - Examines how the court determines intention under duress or coercion.
• R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650 - Explores duty of care in drug-related fatalities.
• Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 (HL) - Addresses capacity and intention in the context of minors’ medical consent.
• R v Moloney [1985] AC 905 - Clarifies oblique intention and foresight of consequences.
• R v Hancock [1986] 2 WLR 257 - Considers probability and foreseeability in intention.
• Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 (HL) - Early approach to recklessness vs. intention.
• R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82 - Defines the threshold for finding intention through virtual certainty.
• Oblique Intention - Discussion of when foresight of consequences is evidence of intention.
• R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 102 - Jury direction on oblique intention.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department v E [2007] EWHC 218 (Admin) - Focuses on foreseeability and certainty.
• Constituting a Certainty - Explores legal thresholds for certainty of outcome.

Transferred Malice

• R v Latimer [1886] 17 Q.B.D 359 - Leading case on transferring malice to an unintended victim.
• R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741 - Illustrates application of transferred malice in a crowd scenario.
• R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59 - Addresses complex factual matrix of transferred malice involving cross-fire.
• Doctrine of Transfer of Malice - Summary of the principle of transferring intent.

Recklessness

• Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132 - Distinguishes true crimes from strict liability offences requiring mens rea.
• R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 - Subjective test for recklessness.
• R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341 - Objective standard for recklessness (later partly overruled).
• Elliot v C (A Minor) [1983] 2 All ER 1005 - Harsh application of the Caldwell objective test.
• R v Parker [1977] 1 WLR 600 - Willful blindness and closing one’s mind to risk.
• R v G and R [2003] UKHL 50 - Returned recklessness to a subjective test for children/young persons.

Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

• Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439 - Demonstrates how a continuing act can fulfill mens rea at some point.
• R v Thabo Meli [1954] 1 WLR 228 - Series of acts viewed as one transaction for coincidence.
• R v Le Brun [1992] QB 61 - Extends the “one transaction” approach to continuing sequences.

Criminal Justice Act 2003

• Hearsay Evidence Law - Discusses the admissibility of hearsay under statutory rules.

• R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14 - Landmark interpretation of hearsay provisions.

• The 2003 Criminal Justice Act - Comprehensive reform of the criminal justice process.

• The Criminal Justice Act 2015 - Supplementary changes and enhancements to existing provisions.

• Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - Further reforms focusing on sentencing and detention.

• Understanding the Crime Control Model - Modern debate on balancing due process and crime control.

• Criminal Law Act 1977 - Provides legislative framework for conspiracy offences.

2. Homicide

• R v Bentley [1953] 1 QB 1 (CCA) - Illustrates the significance of joint ventures in murder charges.

Murder

• Actus Reus of Murder - Core elements defining unlawful killing.
• Actus Reus for Murder - Further clarification on the conduct element.
• R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396 - Confirms malice requirement for murder.
• Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2000] 4 All ER 961 - Application of necessity in murder context.
• R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 - Drug-induced hallucination and absence of specific intent.
• R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192

Voluntary Manslaughter

• Provocation Defence - Outlines older common law approach now replaced by loss of control.

Loss of Control

• R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2 - Key authority on sexual infidelity in loss of control.
• R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4 All ER 889 (CA) - Battered woman syndrome and partial defences.
• R v Asmelash [2013] 1 Cr App R 33 - Addresses the role of voluntary intoxication in assessing loss of control.

Diminished Responsibility

• R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281 - Effect of acute intoxication on diminished responsibility.
• R v Brennan [2014] EWCA Crim 2387 - Significance of psychiatric evidence in establishing the abnormality of mind.
• R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61 - Clarifies “substantial impairment” in diminished responsibility.
• R v Blackman [2017] EWCA Crim 190 - Mental health issues and abnormality of mental functioning in battlefield context.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Constructive Manslaughter

• Constructive Manslaughter - Explains unlawful act manslaughter requirements.
• R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 - Key case defining dangerous unlawful act test.
• R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981 - Horseplay scenario clarifying no unlawful act.
• DPP v Newbury & Jones [1977] AC 500 - Objective test for dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter.
• R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150 - Harm must be foreseeable to a reasonable bystander.
• R v Watson [1989] 1 W.L.R. 684 - Knowledge gained during the unlawful act can render it dangerous.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

• R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL) - Leading case establishing the test for gross negligence.
• R v Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168 - Professional duty of care and risk of death.

3. Non-Fatal Offences

Assault

• Logdon v DPP [1976] Crim LR 121 - Demonstrates apprehension of immediate violence.
• R v Venna [1976] QB 421 (CA) - Defines mens rea for assault as intention or recklessness.
• DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin) - Omitting to warn a police officer of a sharp object.
• DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin) - Application of force can be indirect.

Battery

• R v Martin [1989] 1 All ER 652 - An indirect act (placing an iron bar) can constitute battery.
• Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 (Div Ct) - Clarifies implied consent in everyday contact vs. hostile touching.
• Actus Reus of Battery - Explains the requirement of force, however slight.
• Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000] 3 All ER 890 - Battery committed indirectly through an intervening act.
• R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 - Note: Commonly cited for identification evidence but listed here as a reference.

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

• Understanding Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person in UK Law - Broad overview.
• R v Chan Fook [1994] 1 WLR 689 (CA) - Defines psychiatric injury as possible ABH.
• Understanding A B H - Summarizes the scope of actual bodily harm.
• R v Savage, Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699 - Mens rea for assault suffices for ABH if the result is actual bodily harm.
• R v Ireland [1998] AC 147 (HL) - Silent phone calls causing psychiatric injury as ABH.
• T v DPP [2003] EWHC 266 (Admin) - Momentary loss of consciousness can amount to ABH.
• DPP v Smith [2006] EWHC 94 (Admin) - Cutting victim’s hair can constitute ABH.

Wounding and Grievous Bodily Harm

• Define Grievous Bodily Harm - Explains serious bodily harm threshold.
• R v Bollom [2003] EWCA Crim 2846 - Injuries measured relative to the victim’s age and health.
• R v Dica [2004] EWCA Crim 1103 - Consent and transmission of HIV causing GBH.
• R v Ireland [1997] UKHL 34 - Psychiatric injury can be GBH.

Consent

• AG’s ref (No. 6 of 1980) [1981] QB 715 - Limits on consenting to harm in public interest.
• R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 (HL) - Leading case on sadomasochism, setting public policy constraints.
• R v Wilson [1997] QB 47 - Branding between spouses and the scope of consent.
• R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706 - Informed consent in transmission of HIV.
• R v Barnes [2004] EWCA Crim 3246 - Sports injuries and implied consent.
• R v Slingsby [1995] Crim LR 570 - Accidental infliction of serious injury in consensual activity.
• H v CPS [2010] EWHC 1374 (Admin) - School environment and implied consent to contact.
• R v Tabassum [2000] 2 Cr App R 328 - Validity of consent undermined by deception as to purpose.
• R v Richardson [1999] Q.B. 444 - Fraud and misrepresentation regarding professional qualifications.
• R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560 - Body modification and the boundaries of lawful consent.

4. Sexual Offences

Definition of ‘Sexual’

• R v H [2005] EWCA Crim 732 - Clarifies whether touching could be viewed as sexual by a reasonable person.

Defendant’s Belief in Consent

• Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349 (HL) - Distinguishes intoxicated intent in sexual offence context.
• DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182 (HL) - Mistaken but honest belief in consent as a potential defence.
• R v B [2013] EWCA Crim 3 - Mental disorders affecting the defendant’s belief in consent.
• R v Ciccarelli [2011] EWCA Crim 2665 - Reasonableness of the belief tested against all circumstances.

What Amounts to Consent?

Submission

• R v Olugboja [1982] QB 320 - Consent must be free and voluntary, not mere submission.
• R v Kirk [2008] EWCA Crim 434 - Explores whether desperate circumstances undermine true consent.
• R v Ali [2015] EWCA Crim 1279 - Grooming, exploitation, and the validity of consent.

Intoxication

• R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804 - Consent can evaporate where a person loses capacity through intoxication.

Deception

• R v Flattery (1877) 2 QBD 410 - Fraud as to the nature and quality of the act.
• R v Williams [1923] 1 KB 340 - Deception as to the act’s purpose negates consent.
• R v Linekar [1995] 3 All ER 69 - Deception over payment for sex and whether it vitiates consent.
• R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699 - Misleading texts from defendant leading to non-consensual sex.
• R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 - Online deception regarding identity.
• R v Bingham [2013] EWCA Crim 823 - Cyber deception where the defendant posed as multiple personas.
• R v McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 - Gender identity deception.

Section 75 Sexual Offences Act 2003

• R v Zhang [2007] EWCA Crim 2018 - Presumptions around consent under the Act.

5. Property Offences

Theft

Appropriation

• Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626 (HL) - Consent to appropriation through deception.
• R v Morris [1984] AC 320 (HL) - Switching price labels in a supermarket as appropriation.
• R v Gomez [1993] AC 442 (HL) - Consent obtained by deception can still be appropriation.
• R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 - Appropriation can include a valid gift taken dishonestly.
• R v Briggs [2003] EWCA Crim 3662 - Distinguishes appropriation by deception from the victim’s actions.
• Samuels v Stubbs [1972] 4 SASR 200 - Clarifies the meaning of “appropriation.”
• R v Pitham and Hehl (1977) 65 Cr App R 45 - Selling another’s property as appropriation.

Property

• Elements of Theft - Summarizes key aspects of the offence.
• Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183 - Confidential information is not “property” for theft.
• R v Smith, Plummer and Haines [2011] EWCA Crim 66 - Clarifies illegal property (drugs) can still be stolen.

Belonging to Another

• R v Hall [1973] QB 496 - Money handed over for specific purpose belongs to another.
• R v Turner [1971] 1 WLR 901 (CA) - Taking one’s own car from a repair shop without paying can be theft.
• Actus Reus of Theft - Outlines “appropriation,” “property,” and “belonging to another.”

Dishonesty

• R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053; Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 - Established the two-stage subjective/objective test for dishonesty.
• Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 - Replaced Ghosh with an objective standard of dishonesty.

Intention Permanently to Deprive

• R v Lloyd [1985] QB 829 (CA) - Borrowing property is not theft unless the virtue or value is lost.

Robbery

• R v Hale (1979) 68 Cr App R 415 - Appropriation can be a continuing act for the use of force.
• R v Dawson (1977) 64 Cr App R 170 - Minimal use of force may suffice.
• Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104 - Snatching property from the victim can amount to robbery.
• Handling Stolen Goods - Addresses receiving or assisting in disposal of stolen items.

Burglary

• R v Collins [1973] QB 100 - “Effective and substantial entry” requirement.
• Jones v Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672 - Entering with the intent to commit an offence can exceed permission.
• R v Walkington [1979] 1 WLR 1169 (CA) - Trespassing into a part of a building with intent.

Fraud

• Fraud by Failing to Disclose Information - Addresses duty to disclose under certain relationships.
• R v Valujevs [2014] EWCA Crim 2888 - Fraud by abuse of position.

Criminal Damage

• R v Smith [1974] QB 354 (CA) - A defendant must know property belongs to another.
• R v Denton [1982] 1 All ER 65 - Honest belief in consent as a defence.
• R v G and R [2003] UKHL 50 - Recklessness standard in criminal damage restored to subjective test.

6. Complicity

Aiding

• Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 - Statutory basis for accessories.
• NCB v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 - Defines intent requirement for aiding an offence.
• R v JF Alford [1997] 2 Cr App R 326 - Aid must have some effect on the principal’s offence.

Abetting

• R v Clarkson [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1402 - Voluntary and intentional encouragement required.

Counselling

• R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808 - Counselling must relate to the commission of the offence.

Procuring

• Blakely and Sutton v DPP [1991] RTR 405 - Causing an offence to happen without direct involvement.
• A-G’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773 - Defines “procuring” as setting out to cause a crime.

Mens Rea

• R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129 - Accessory’s knowledge of the type of offence intended.
• DPP NI v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350 (HL) - Liability for any offence within the range contemplated.
• R v Bryce [2004] EWCA Crim 1231 - Intent or recklessness as to the principal offence being committed.
• R v Gilmour [2000] 2 Cr App R 407 - Differentiating principal and accessory liability based on foreseeability.

Joint Enterprise

• R v Chan Wing-Siu [1985] AC 168 - Expands accessorial liability to foreseen crimes.
• R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 - Overturned the widened scope in Chan Wing-Siu, requiring intent for the specific offence.
• R v Anwar [2016] EWCA Crim 551 - Application of Jogee in subsequent appeals.
• R v Johnson (Lewis) [2016] EWCA Crim 1613 - Clarifies the new approach to secondary liability post-Jogee.

Derivative Principle

• R v Bourne (1952) 36 Cr App R 125 - Principal must commit the actus reus for the accessory to be liable.
• R v Howe [1987] AC 417 (HL) - Accessories can be liable for a more serious offence than the principal.
• R v Millward (1994) 158 J.P. 1091 - Provides for accessory liability even if the principal lacks mens rea.
• R v Thornton and Mitchell [1940] 1 All ER 339 - Ancillary liability where the principal is acquitted due to no fault.
• R v Cogan and Leak [1976] QB 217 - Accessory liability when the principal is acquitted on grounds of mistaken belief.

Withdrawal of Accessories

• R v Rook [1993] 2 All ER 955 - Must take unequivocal steps to withdraw.
• R v Becerra and Cooper (1976) 62 Cr App R 212 - Mere mental change of heart is insufficient to withdraw.
• R v O’Flaherty [2004] EWCA Crim 526 - Communicating withdrawal must be timely and effective.

Victims as Accessories

• R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710 - Victims of an offence cannot be charged as secondary parties.

7. Inchoate Liability

Inchoate Complicity

• Serious Crime Act 2007 - Provides statutory basis for encouraging or assisting offences.
• R v Sadique [2013] EWCA Crim 1150 - Explores scope of liability for assisting multiple offences.
• Inchoate Liability - General overview of attempts, conspiracy, and assisting or encouraging.

Conspiracy

• R v Anderson [1986] AC 27 - Requires agreement to carry out a criminal act.
• R v Siracusa (1990) 90 Cr App R 340 - Extends conspiracy to those who play a passive role.
• R v Yip Chiu-Cheung [1995] 1 AC 111 - Factual impossibility does not negate conspiracy.
• R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18 - Requires knowledge or intent regarding material facts.

Attempt

Actus Reus

• s1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 - Statutory definition of an attempt.
• R v Gullefer [1990] 1 WLR 1063 - “Embarking on the crime proper” test.
• R v Jones [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1057 - Defining the point where acts are more than merely preparatory.
• R v Campbell (1991) 93 Cr App R 350 - Arrest before entering the scene found to be merely preparatory.
• R v Geddes (1996) 160 J.P. 697 - Hiding in school toilets with equipment still preparatory.

Mens Rea

• R v Khan [1990] 1 WLR 813 - Intent for the act with recklessness as to circumstances.
• AG’s Reference No 3 of 1992 [1994] 1 WLR 409 - Specific intent to commit the offence.
• R v Pace and Rogers [2014] EWCA Crim 186 - Must intend all elements of the offence.

Impossibility

• Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560 (HL) - Early view protecting defendants who believed wrongly they were committing an offence.
• R v Shivpuri [1987] AC 1 (HL) - Overruled Anderton v Ryan, attempt can be committed even if the crime is impossible.

8. Incapacity

Automatism

• Automatism Defence - Explains lack of voluntary control over actions.
• Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277 - Illustrates situations (e.g., swarm of bees) rendering acts involuntary.
• Automatism as a Defence in Criminal Law - Overarching principles of automatism.

Infancy

• R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20 - Abolished the conclusive presumption of doli incapax for those under 14.

Insanity

Defect of Reason

• R v Clarke [1972] 1 NSWLR 290 - Shoplifting due to absent-mindedness and whether it meets the standard.

Disease of the Mind

• R v M'Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200 (HL) - Established the legal test for insanity.
• R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156 (HL) - Epilepsy as a disease of the mind for insanity.
• Quick v Prettejohn [1973] QB 910 - Hypoglycemia from external factors vs. “disease of the mind.”
• R v Kemp (1957) 1 QB 399 - Arteriosclerosis recognized as a disease of the mind.
• R v Hennessy [1989] 2 All ER 9 (CA) - Hyperglycemia from internal cause as insanity.
• R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92 - Sleepwalking can be an internal cause.

Not Knowing the Nature of the Act or That It Is Wrong

• R v Johnson [2007] EWCA Crim 1978 - Reiterates “wrong” means legally wrong, not morally wrong.

Intoxication

Involuntary

• R v Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355 - Even involuntary intoxication does not necessarily absolve intent.

Voluntary

• Basic Intent Crimes - Offences where intoxication as a defence is limited.
• DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443 (HL) - Voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent.
• R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698 - Strength of an alcoholic drink misunderstood by the defendant.
• R v Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125 - Sexual assault as a basic intent offence.
• R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 (CA) - Defendant’s LSD-induced state not absolving manslaughter.

Dangerous or Non-Dangerous Drugs

• Bailey v R [1983] 1 WLR 760 - Considers self-medication with insulin and potential reckless conduct.
• R v Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64 (CA) - Taking Valium (a sedative) unexpectedly leading to aggression.
• R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392 - Recklessness assessed subjectively if intoxication was voluntary.

Intoxicated Mistake

• Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] QB 527 - Honest, even if intoxicated, mistaken belief in consent to damage property.

9. General Defences

Self-Defence and Prevention of Crime

• R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482 - Excessive force negates self-defence.
• R v Martin (Tony) [2001] EWCA Crim 2245 - Householder cases and excessive self-defence.
• Beckford v R [1988] AC 130 - Honest belief of imminent attack suffices.
• R v Keane [2010] EWCA Crim 2514 - Defendant’s initial aggression may limit self-defence.
• R v Hichens [2011] EWCA Crim 1626 - Self-defence against an innocent third party.
• R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) - Reasonableness of force in householder cases.

Duress

• Hudson v Taylor [1971] 2 QB 202 - Fear of reprisals can excuse false testimony.
• R v Abdul-Hussain [1999] Crim LR 570 - Immediacy of threat required for duress.
• R v Howe [1987] AC 417 (HL) - Duress unavailable for murder.
• R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412 - Duress unavailable for attempted murder.
• Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1997] 1 WLR 372 - Defendant’s characteristics relevant to the standard of firmness.
• R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22 - Strict limitations on voluntariness and association with criminals.
• Graham v R [1982] 1 WLR 294 - Two-stage test for duress (subjective and objective).
• R v Ness [2011] Crim LR 645 - Availability of duress for conspiracy to murder.
• Understanding Defence Duress in Criminal Law - Summarizes general requirements.
• Is Entrapment Against the Law? - Discusses entrapment, distinguished from duress.

Necessity and Duress of Circumstances

• R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 (QB) - Leading necessity case involving survival cannibalism.
• Duress of Circumstances - When external circumstances compel illegal action.
• R v Conway [1989] QB 290 - Driving dangerously under threat.
• R v Graham [1982] 1 All ER 801 - Threat of suicide by another can amount to duress of circumstances.
• R v Quayle [2005] EWCA Crim 1415 - Medical necessity arguments in drug offences.
• Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2000] 4 All ER 961 - Necessity in medical scenarios.

10. Procedural Aspects

• Bail Act 1976 - Governs bail procedures and conditions.
• Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 - Establishes procedures for summary trials.
• Summary Trial - Trial process in the magistrates’ court.
• Understanding the Code of Practice D of PACE - Governs identification procedures in criminal investigations.
• Exam in Chief - Process for questioning one’s own witness.
• Evidence in Chief Explained - Clarifies the purpose and scope of direct examination.
• Re-examination - Follow-up questioning to clarify issues after cross-examination.
• The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 - Reforms relating to coroners, inquests, and criminal evidence.
• Understanding Criminal Litigation - Highlights pre-trial and trial procedure in criminal law.

11. Court Jurisdictions

• Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates' Court [2010] EWHC 2358 (Admin) - Judicial review of a magistrates’ court decision.