R v Fitzmaurice
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE NEILL |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Crim J0708-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | 3895/B2/81 |
| Date | 08 July 1982 |
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Villanueva, Villanueva and Baeza v R
...which he enters an agreement unless it can also be shown that what he has agreed to do is unlawful.” 41 In Robert Fitzmaurice v. R (1983) 76 Cr. App. R. 17 , the Court of Appeal in England expressed the view that: “the right approach in the case of incitement is the same as that which was ......
-
R v Sirat
...because he would be inciting the commission of an impossible crime. B cannot incite C, because C does not exist. On the basis of R. v. Fitzmaurice, (1983) 2 WLR 227, the judge rightly so directed the jury. Hence, since the jury convicted on count 2, it follows that they must have concluded......
-
Hksar v Jariabka Juraj
...1 All ER 807, at 813 a and h. [26] R v Shepherd [1919] 2 KB 125, at 126; R v McDonough (1962) 47 Cr App R 37, at 38; R v Fitzmaurice [1983] 1 All ER 189, at [27] DPP v Armstrong [2000] Crim L.R. 379, at 380. [28] HKSAR v Jaribaka Jurai (CACC 321/2014; unreported, 28 November 2015 at paragra......
-
R. v Kong Yue Kwai
...he would be inciting the commission of an impossible crime. B cannot incite C, because C does not exist. On the basis of Fitzmaurice (1983) 76 Cr.App.R. 17; [1983] Q.B. 1083, the judge rightly so directed the jury. Hence, since the jury convicted on count 2, it follows that they must have c......