R v Nedrick established the modern test for proving intention in criminal law, particularly for murder cases. The Court of Appeal clarified that intention can be inferred when death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty from the defendant's actions and the defendant appreciated this fact.

Case establishing that actus reus can be satisfied by an omission where there is a legal duty to act. The defendant's failure to fulfil a statutory duty constituted the physical element of the offence.

Court establishes classic definition of consideration requiring benefit or detriment

This case established the modern test for oblique intention in murder, clarifying when a jury may infer intention from foresight of consequences. The House of Lords ruled that intention may be inferred only where death or serious bodily harm was virtually certain and the defendant appreciated this virtual certainty.

Commercial agreements presumed to create legal relations despite 'ex gratia' descriptions.

Contract formed through conduct despite absence of formal acceptance

The Court of Appeal held that intoxication by non-dangerous drugs like Valium may provide a defence to crimes of basic intent if the intoxication was not reckless, distinguishing therapeutic drugs from alcohol and dangerous drugs.

R v Pittwood established that a person can be criminally liable for omissions where they have undertaken a duty of care. A railway gatekeeper who failed to close level crossing gates, resulting in a fatal collision, was convicted of manslaughter despite not having actively caused the death.

Court of Appeal established that a person can be convicted of criminal damage to their own property if it is subject to a charge or lien giving another person rights in it.

Family arrangements presumed to lack contractual intention despite presence of consideration.

Court establishes three certainties doctrine for valid trust creation

Advertisement promising £100 reward constitutes binding contractual offer

This Supreme Court case established a new test for dishonesty in criminal law, overruling the subjective element of the Ghosh test. The case arose from a professional gambler's civil claim against a casino after being accused of cheating at baccarat through edge-sorting.

Defined the mens rea requirement for s.20 grievous bodily harm, establishing that the defendant need only intend or foresee some harm, not necessarily serious harm. The case clarified the distinction between s.18 and s.20 offences.

Court establishes objective test for contractual agreement over subjective intentions

R v Ghosh established the test for dishonesty in criminal law, requiring both objective and subjective elements. The case created a two-stage test that was fundamental to determining dishonesty in fraud and theft cases until the Supreme Court replaced its subjective second limb with a wholly objective test in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.

House of Lords case dealing with impossibility in criminal attempts, which was later overruled by Shivpuri. The defendant was acquitted of attempted handling of stolen goods where the goods were not actually stolen.

House of Lords clarifies test for intention in murder cases

This House of Lords case established that psychiatric harm can constitute 'grievous bodily harm' and 'actual bodily harm' under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and that silent telephone calls can amount to assault. The decision significantly expanded the scope of assault and battery offences to include psychological injuries.

This case established that a duty of care in criminal law can arise from voluntary assumption of responsibility for a vulnerable person. Stone and Dobinson were convicted of manslaughter after Stone's sister died from malnutrition while living in their care, despite their failure to seek adequate medical help.

Separated spouses' agreements presumed legally binding unlike harmonious domestic arrangements

Silence cannot constitute acceptance of contractual offer

A person intends the natural and probable consequences of their acts.

Courts won't assess adequacy of consideration, only legal sufficiency required

Contract formation via telex occurs when acceptance received, not sent

Legal duty plus additional benefit can constitute valid consideration for contract formation.

Foresight of highly probable serious harm can constitute mens rea for murder.

Informal family arrangements can create binding contracts with sufficient evidence of intention.

Cunningham establishes subjective test for malice in criminal law

Specific intent requires decision to bring about the prohibited consequence as means or end.

Court establishes certainty requirement for charitable trusts and cy-près doctrine

Court establishes postal rule: acceptance effective when letter posted

Acceptance by instantaneous communication effective when and where message is received.

Substantially similar acceptance methods suffice when they achieve the same result.

A continuing act can constitute assault when mens rea is formed during the act.

Foresight of consequences is evidence of intention, not intention itself.

Revocation of offer ineffective until communicated to offeree