A comment on Moor's case

Criminal Law Review

Volumn , Issue JAN., 2000, Pages 41-44

  Smith, J C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0005009620     PISSN: 0011135X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Environment Agency v. Empress Car Co [1999] 2 A.C. 22, sub. nom. Empress Car Co v. National Rivers Authority [1998] 1 All E.R. 481.
2. Causation in the Law (2nd ed. 1985) 344.
3. Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd ed. 1983) at p.385, "The defence of minimal causation," considers, that Devlin J.'s judgment in Adams seems to imply the view that what the doctor does by way of approved medical practice is not a cause in law; but the passage quoted is at least equally consistent with a special doctor's defence.
4. [1999] A.C. 82,
5. [1998] Crim.L.R. 890
6. [1986] 3 All E.R. 1, CA.
7. [1999] Crim.L.R. 246.
8. [1999] Crim.L.R. 532.
9. Adomako [1995] 1 A.C. 171
10. - at least as interpreted in Smith & Hogan, Criminal Law (9th ed.) pp. 375-377.
11. Even that stickler for exactitude in the law, Glanville Williams said of Devlin J.'s direction in Adams, "we may applaud his attitude without enquiring too closely into its legal basis" - the least bad solution in the absence of a statutory defence of euthanasia which he supported.