This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

R v Calhaem [1985] QB 808

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:02

Judgement for the case R v Calhaem

Table Of Contents

  • Defendant 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.

  • Defendant 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. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on R v Calhaem

Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Criminal LawDefences Notes (32 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...