Two shipwrecked sailors killed and ate their teenage cabin boy to survive at sea, then were charged with murder upon rescue. The court rejected the defence of necessity, establishing that necessity cannot justify taking an innocent life.

R v Graham established the modern two-stage test for the defence of duress in criminal law. The Court of Appeal set out both objective and subjective elements that must be satisfied for duress to succeed as a defence to criminal charges.

Steane, a British actor, made propaganda broadcasts for Germany during WWII to protect his family from a concentration camp. The Court of Appeal held that for the offence of doing acts likely to assist the enemy with intent to assist the enemy, the prosecution must prove the accused intended to assist the enemy, not merely that he intended to do the acts.

R v Howe established that duress cannot be a defence to murder, even for secondary parties who did not directly commit the killing. This landmark House of Lords decision clarified the boundaries of the duress defence in the most serious criminal cases.

R v Martin established that the defence of self-defence is not available to defendants who use excessive force against burglars, even when acting under psychiatric conditions. The case clarified that duress of circumstances cannot excuse disproportionate defensive action in one's home.

Bailey, a diabetic, assaulted his ex-girlfriend's new partner after taking insulin but failing to eat sufficient food. He claimed his hypoglycaemia rendered him an automaton. The Court of Appeal held that self-induced automatism may provide a defence if not caused by reckless failure to take precautions, distinguishing voluntary intoxication.

A soldier shot and killed a person in Northern Ireland, claiming self-defence, but the House of Lords ruled that excessive force in self-defence cannot reduce murder to manslaughter. The case established that the defence of self-defence is 'all or nothing' - if the force used is unreasonable, the defence fails completely.

Threats of criminal prosecution constitute duress rendering contracts voidable

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.

A defendant killed his friend during a drunken fight, claiming self-defence. The Court of Appeal held that voluntary intoxication cannot support a claim of self-defence, even for basic intent crimes.

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.

A key case establishing the limitations of transferred malice where the type of harm differs from that intended. The defendant threw a stone intending to hit people but broke a window instead.

This case established the fundamental test for the insanity defence in English criminal law. The defendant shot the Prime Minister's secretary believing he was being persecuted by the government.

Economic duress established where illegitimate pressure leaves no practical alternative choice

A police officer can be guilty of misconduct in public office by wilful omission of duty

A Victorian case where a man deceived a woman into having sexual intercourse by pretending it was a medical procedure. The court held that deception as to the nature of the act vitiates consent.

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.

R v Latimer established the doctrine of transferred malice in criminal law, where a defendant's intention to harm one person can be transferred to make them liable for actually harming another person. This case is fundamental to understanding how criminal intent operates when the actual victim differs from the intended victim.

Economic duress: illegitimate pressure without practical choice makes contracts voidable.

R v White established that causation in criminal law requires the defendant's act to be a factual cause of the prohibited result. White attempted to poison his mother but she died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect, breaking the chain of causation and resulting in conviction only for attempt.

R v Gibbins and Proctor established that a person can be criminally liable for murder by omission where they have a duty to act but fail to do so. The case involved a father and his partner who failed to feed the father's child, resulting in the child's death from starvation.

Lawful commercial threats cannot normally constitute economic duress despite business pressure

The House of Lords established the fundamental principles governing intoxication as a defence in criminal law, distinguishing between crimes of specific and basic intent and setting rules for when intoxication can negate mens rea.

Voluntary participation in violent gangs precludes duress defense for subsequent crimes.

A foundational case establishing the test for gross negligence manslaughter, requiring negligence so gross that it amounts to a crime and merits criminal punishment rather than mere civil liability.

Woolmington v DPP established the fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. The case overturned the previous rule that required defendants to prove their innocence when claiming self-defence in murder cases.

Psychiatric injury recoverable where claimant fears immediate personal physical danger.

Defendant liable for victim's unforeseeable reaction to assault

Hidden vulnerabilities don't make unlawful act dangerous if unforeseeable to reasonable person

Reasonable person test includes defendant's physical but not mental characteristics.

Emergency rescues justify higher risk-taking than normal circumstances.

The defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend, causing her to give birth prematurely. The child was born alive but died 121 days later from the injuries sustained in utero. The House of Lords held that a foetus is not a 'person in being' for murder purposes, but conviction for manslaughter was possible through the doctrine of transferred malice.

Voluntary assumption of care creates criminal duty toward vulnerable adults

Distinguished insane automatism from non-insane automatism in criminal defences.

Consent no defence to serious harm in sadomasochistic sexual activities

Unreasonable victim reaction can break causation if unforeseeable and unreasonable.

Automatism requires totally involuntary conduct; insanity defence available for mental disease causing automatism.

Assault can be committed indirectly through setting up dangerous situations for victims.