Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

R v Calhaem

[1985] QB 808

Case summary last updated at 11/01/2020 14:24 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Calhaem

 D paid Z to murder V. When Z was in V’s home, he decided not to murder V, but suddenly went berserk and did it. D was convicted of counselling Z and CA dismissed her appeal on the grounds that “counsel” did not require a causal connection. On the basis of Widgery’s “ordinary meaning” rule, the word “counsel” implies no causal connection an simply means “authorise” or “advise” etc 

R v Calhaem crops up in following areas of law