Criminal law is a dynamic and popular element of all law degrees. Unlocking Criminal Law will ensure that you grasp the main concepts with ease, providing you with an indispensable foundation in the subject. This third edition is fully up-to-date with the latest changes in the law and now includes discussion of the Fraud Act, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, as well as all the major new cases.
This edition has been fully updated to include discussion of recent changes and developments within criminal law, including the latest case law and those laws passed in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis.
Newman, C., 'Racially aggravated public order offence: motivation of racial remark an absence of a victim' (2009) 173 JP 88. Newman, C., 'Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986: the threshold of extreme protest' (2012) 76 J Crim L 105.
Unlocking the Law is the groundbreaking series of textbooks with a unique approach to the study of law.
The text uses a narrative approach that presents background information necessary to understand the principles involved in criminal law and set forth the elements of the major crimes.
Updated with the most current developments in criminal law and public policy, the Second Edition takes students beyond the classroom and prepares them to apply criminal law in today’s legal world.
In short, the text combines theory and practice and is compact, student friendly, flexible, and high tech.
This book is designed to be easy to use and to produce rewarding and insightful classroom discussion.
This is the third edition of the best selling title. A new edition is necessary because of the introduction of a new AQA text.
42, 60 R v Williams [1998] Crim LR 494. .... ..161 R v Willis [1960] 1 WLR 55 . ... 197, 199, 206, 215, 227, 237 Thomas v Commissioner of Police [1997] 1 All ER 747.. ....................................... .. 184 Thomas v David (1836) ...
In Savage and Parmenter, the House of Lords approved Roberts on this point, holding that there was no obligation on the Crown to prove either intention or recklessness on the part of the defendant towards the actual bodily harm.