header-logo header-logo

10 July 2008
Issue: 7329 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Criminal law

R v Rahman and others [2008] UKHL 45, [2008] All ER (D) 47 (Jul)

If B realises (without agreeing to such conduct being used) that A may kill or intentionally inflict serious injury, but nevertheless continues to participate with A in the venture, that will amount to a sufficient mental element for B to be guilty of murder if A, with the requisite intent, kills in the course of the venture unless: (i) A suddenly produces and uses a weapon of which B knows nothing and which is more lethal than any weapon which B contemplates that A or any other participant may be carrying; and (ii) for that reason A’s act is to be regarded as fundamentally different from anything foreseen by B (per Lord Brown at 68).

Issue: 7329 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Mental health
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW—Nelson Wang

HFW strengthens global insurance practice and Greater China offering with London Partner hire

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon—David McEwing

Burges Salmon boosts Energy and Utilities practice with appointment of David McEwing

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson—Alexander Studholme

Browne Jacobson adds international construction arbitration partner in London push

NEWS
Law firm trainees are choosing US firms over their UK comparators, according to Chambers’ annual report on UK trainee satisfaction
A former senior judge has warned peers against scrapping juries for fraud and financial crimes, ahead of the Courts and Tribunals Bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this week
Civil practitioners face changes spanning debt recovery, workplace harassment and possession claims, alongside guidance on insolvency challenges and children proceedings

Finding matrimonial wealth is as challenging as dividing it, as family disputes draw practitioners into asset tracing, offshore structures and insolvency

Agreement between opponents offers no guarantee that a court will approve a retrospective increase to a costs budget
back-to-top-scroll