Stephen Tait and a friend had gone to Colin McIntyre's house to frighten him. McIntyre's two daughters were home, and the elder, Wendy, was pregnant. McIntyre was not home, so Tait and his friend stole some property and then threatened Wendy and her sister not to tell the police, or they would all be hurt, including Wendy's "baby." The men were arrested, charged, and convicted of threatening to kill Wendy, her sister, and Wendy's baby. Tait appealed the conviction for threatening to kill the baby on grounds that the baby was still unborn. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, arguing that because the fetus in utero was not, in the ordinary sense, another person distinct from its mother, Tait's threat to kill it was not a distinct offense.
{"title":"R v. Tait.","authors":"Criminal Division","doi":"10.25291/vr/1973-vr-151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25291/vr/1973-vr-151","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Stephen Tait and a friend had gone to Colin McIntyre's house to frighten him. McIntyre's two daughters were home, and the elder, Wendy, was pregnant. McIntyre was not home, so Tait and his friend stole some property and then threatened Wendy and her sister not to tell the police, or they would all be hurt, including Wendy's \"baby.\" The men were arrested, charged, and convicted of threatening to kill Wendy, her sister, and Wendy's baby. Tait appealed the conviction for threatening to kill the baby on grounds that the baby was still unborn. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, arguing that because the fetus in utero was not, in the ordinary sense, another person distinct from its mother, Tait's threat to kill it was not a distinct offense.\u0000","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"[1989] 3 1","pages":"682-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69170335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1987-07-10DOI: 10.25291/vr/1936-vlr-293
Family Division
In this English case, the defendant was a pregnant, 19-year-old, severely mentally handicapped epileptic. Her mother undertook to have the pregnancy terminated and her daughter sterilized. Because doctors would not operate without the court's protection, the mother sought a declaration to permit the termination and sterilization without her daughter's consent. The Family Division of the High Court found no statutory provision allowing third party consent to be given under these circumstances. Instead, given the urgency of the case, the lack of contraceptive alternatives, and the impossibility of the defendant's being able to consent, the court ruled that the residual parens patriae jurisdiction of the Crown gave the court suitable power to adjudicate. The court granted the declaration, reasoning that medical advisors should do what the urgency of the situation demanded.
{"title":"T v. T.","authors":"Family Division","doi":"10.25291/vr/1936-vlr-293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25291/vr/1936-vlr-293","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this English case, the defendant was a pregnant, 19-year-old, severely mentally handicapped epileptic. Her mother undertook to have the pregnancy terminated and her daughter sterilized. Because doctors would not operate without the court's protection, the mother sought a declaration to permit the termination and sterilization without her daughter's consent. The Family Division of the High Court found no statutory provision allowing third party consent to be given under these circumstances. Instead, given the urgency of the case, the lack of contraceptive alternatives, and the impossibility of the defendant's being able to consent, the court ruled that the residual parens patriae jurisdiction of the Crown gave the court suitable power to adjudicate. The court granted the declaration, reasoning that medical advisors should do what the urgency of the situation demanded.\u0000","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"[1988] 1 1","pages":"613-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1987-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69170764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1984-01-01DOI: 10.5040/9781782259800.ch-056
L. Scarman, Lord Bridge OF Harwich, Lord Brandon OF Oakbrook, Lord Templeman
England's Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled that parents had the right to prevent a physician at the local health authority from prescribing contraceptives to girls under the age of 16 without parental consent. Since a girl was legally incapable of giving valid consent in other matters before that age, neither could she give valid consent to contraception or abortion. A doctor who provided contraception or abortion treatment to a girl under 16, except in an emergency or with permission of the court, would infringe on the legal rights of the parents. An appeal was taken to the House of Lords.
{"title":"Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority.","authors":"L. Scarman, Lord Bridge OF Harwich, Lord Brandon OF Oakbrook, Lord Templeman","doi":"10.5040/9781782259800.ch-056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781782259800.ch-056","url":null,"abstract":"England's Court of Appeal, Civil Division, ruled that parents had the right to prevent a physician at the local health authority from prescribing contraceptives to girls under the age of 16 without parental consent. Since a girl was legally incapable of giving valid consent in other matters before that age, neither could she give valid consent to contraception or abortion. A doctor who provided contraception or abortion treatment to a girl under 16, except in an emergency or with permission of the court, would infringe on the legal rights of the parents. An appeal was taken to the House of Lords.","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"1985 1 1","pages":"533-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70542814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：