Attorney General v Able
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1983 |
| Date | 1983 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
41 cases
-
R v L and Another
...because of the personal and individual nature of a guilty mind. In such a case, it may well be that a contrary intention appears. Attorney-General v Able [1984] 1 All ER 277, to which we were referred, was a case in which the point which we have had to consider was not in any manner argued,......
-
Attorney General (S.P.U.C.) v Open Door Counselling Ltd
...not persons were likely to be corrupted. Knuller v. Director of Public ProsecutionsELR [1973] A.C. 435 and Attorney General v. AbleELR [1984] Q.B. 795 considered. 6. That the activities of the defendants amounted to counselling and assisting pregnant women to travel abroad to obtain further......
-
R v Mendez (Reece) and Others
...do not have to satisfy a “but for” test, i.e. that P's act would not have happened but for D's assistance or encouragement: Attorney General v Able [1984] QB 795, 812 and Calhaem [1985] QB 808. To require the prosecution to satisfy a “but for” test would be to place an impossible burden on ......
-
Phonographic Performances Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry
...uncertain legal principles. In the alternative he pointed out that the Crown might have applied for a negative declaration, cf A-G v Able [1984] QB 795, but never tried. Further, as he submitted, any evidential problem concerning the quantum of damage would prejudice PPL more than the Crow......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
The Contribution of Complicity
...to satisfy a ‘but for’test, i.e. that P’s act would not have happened but for D’sassistance or encouragement: Attorney General v Able [1984] QB 795, 812 and R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808.To require the prosecution to satisfy a ‘but for’test would be to place an impossible burden on them in many......
-
The Contribution of Complicity
...to satisfy a ‘but for’test, i.e. that P’s act would not have happened but for D’sassistance or encouragement: Attorney General v Able [1984] QB 795, 812 and R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808.To require the prosecution to satisfy a ‘but for’test would be to place an impossible burden on them in many......
-
Complicity in Suicide
...R v Wright [2000] Crim LR 928, (2000) 64 JCL 576.6 R v Bryce [2004] EWCA Crim 1231, [2004] 2 Cr App R 35 at 592.7 Attorney-General v Able [1984] QB 795, [1984] 1 All ER 277, per Woolf J; R v (1862) 9 Cox CC 152; R v Baker (1909) 28 NZLR 536. 8 R v Reed (1982) Crim LR 819. 536 Complicity in ......