Kong Cheuk Kwan v R
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1985 |
| Date | 1985 |
| Year | 1985 |
| Court | Privy Council |
-
- 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
6 cases
- R v Northavon District Council, ex parte Smith (pet. all.)
-
R v Adomako
...of law that the risk of death must be higher than that required for the latter. 16However, in the later Privy Council case of Kong Cheuk Kwan v The Queen 82 CAR 18, Lord Roskill at page 25 qualified the final words of the answer he gave in Seymour, saying they were added: "not to alter the ......
-
Brown (Uriah) v The Queen
...was not a case involving motor vehicle driving) or that stated by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Kong Cheuk Kwan (1986) 82 Cr. App. R. 18 for gross negligence and adopted in R v Charlie Williamson (1993) 30 JLR 457, by the Court of Appeal." The appellant has been on bail for......
-
R v Goodfellow
...of a passage in Archbold, 41st Edition, which was the subject of adverse criticism by their Lordships in the Privy Council in Kong Cheuk Kwan v. The Queen (1985) Crim. L. R. 787, Privy Council Appeal No. 65 of 1984. A report of that decision had appeared in the Times newspaper shortly befor......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Merchant Shipping Act 1995, S. 58: Statutory Interpretation
...manslaughter. The law in this regard has changedsignificantly over the last two decades. The Privy Council In Kong CheukKwan vR(1985) 82 Cr App R 18 held that, on the issue of mens rea inmanslaughter, it was appropriate for juries to be directed in terms ofCaldwell ([1982] 2 AC 341) reckle......
-
Ex Turpi Causa and Gross Negligence Manslaughter
...negligencemanslaughter. Indeed Lord Roskill said that the term ‘gross negligence’8 [1983] 2 All ER 1058.9 [1981] 1 All ER 974.10 (1985) 82 Cr App R 18.Ex Turpi Causa and Gross Negligence was more likely to confuse rather than assist juries and should not beused in future.The effect of these......