R v Janjua ; R v Choudhury
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE CURTIS |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] EWCA Crim J0430-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 97/3072/X3, 97/3113/X3 |
| Date | 08 May 1998 |
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Queen v Terence Malachy Davison, James McCormick, Joseph Gerard Fitzpatrick
...adopted by the House of Lords in R v Hyam [1975] AC 55 and again in R v Cunningham [1982] AC 566; and see also R v Janjua and Choudury [1999] 1 Cr App R 91 on the significance of the omission from a direction of the word ‘really’.” [22] The prosecution case against Davison has been put in t......
-
R v Michael Anthony Wilson
...without legal error, use the phrase "serious harm", without the use of the additional epithet "really": see R v Janjua and Choudury [1999] 1 Cr App R 91. But it is altogether more usual nowadays to describe grievous bodily harm in terms of "really serious harm", or "really serious injury", ......
-
R v Ryandeep Singh Sidhu
...rea for murder. In written submissions, which we have read with care, the applicant cites in this respect R v Janjua and Choudhury [1999] 1 Cr App R 91. In Archbold (2019) at page [2199], paragraphs [19] – [18], it is inferred that an intention to cause “ serious” harm might suffice for mu......
-
R v Dean Carey
...In Saunders, an unreported decision of the Court of Appeal presided over by Lord Lane, LCJ on 29th January 1985, referred to in Janjua [1999] 1 Cr.App.R 91 at page 95C to F, the Lord Chief Justice observed: "If the omission of the word 'really' is ever a proper ground of appeal, which we do......
1 books & journal articles
-
Offences against the Person: Into the 21st Century
...and non-serious. However, laterCourt of Appeal cases, especially R v Janjua,12 have declared that there11 [1961] AC 290, HL.12 [1999] 1 Cr App R 91.Offences against the Person: Into the 21st are only two categories of harm, serious and non-serious. The adjective‘really’ in DPP vSmith simply......