White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1999] 2 AC 455 and Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] UKHL 5: These cases relate to the Hillsborough disaster. In Alcock, several family members of those killed and injured brought claims for psychiatric injuries after witnessing the event on TV. These were rejected as the camera didn’t zoom in far enough to directly see or hear individuals. The court feared opening the floodgates by allowing these claims since the incident was broadcast live, leading to this harsh judgement. Years later, police rescuers sued in White for psychiatric injuries received in the disaster’s aftermath. Rather than follow precedent (Chadwick v British Railways Board [1967] 1 WLR 912), the House of Lords (HOL) added a requirement that primary victims must at least believe themselves to be in physical danger. Lord Griffiths stated that this makes little sense since the psychiatric injury would come from what they witness rather than fearing for their safety. It’s likely that the courts feared a public outcry if the police could recover but the victim’s families couldn’t, and so they created a reason to come to a decision rather than coming to a decision based on the reasoning. Do you think a just procedure is necessary for a just decision?

R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341: After an argument with the owner, the defendant drunkenly set fire to a hotel. He pled guilty to reckless arson, but the question was whether he was also guilty of reckless endangerment under s1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 as he argued he was so drunk that he couldn’t contemplate the risk to people inside. The court determined that the test for reckless endangerment should be objective, so a person’s mental state wouldn’t be considered. However, this meant that young or uneducated people who couldn’t understand the risks of their recklessness would be treated the same as a person who could. As this was a HOL case, it could only be changed by a case that made it to the HOL again. This happened 20 years later with R v G [2003] UKHL 50. Two young boys set fire to newspapers, which spread and damaged several nearby buildings. The court rejected the earlier test and held that the children couldn’t foresee the damage of their actions, but this judgement came too little too late for cases within those 20 years.

Watteau v Fenwick (1893) 1 QB 346: Don’t be fooled by its age, this case is still good law. Humble sold Victoria Hotel to Fenwick, but his name remained above the door, and he stayed as a manager. Watteau sold cigars to Humble, unaware he wasn’t the owner and was forbidden from purchasing them. When Watteau wasn’t paid, he sued. Wills J held that once it was established Fenwick was the principal (person in charge), they were liable for all Humble’s acts as their agent (person acting on behalf of the principal) if they were performed within the apparent authority of his position. However, “apparent authority” would require Fenwick to have held out Humble as having this authority. How could Watteau rely on Fenwick’s assertions that Humble had authority when he didn’t know Fenwick existed? As a result, a principal would likely be liable for all the acts performed by their agent in their own name, even when they are acting outside their given authority.

Re-establishing the Search for Principle Lord Goff's Dissent in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 AC 455

Goodbye and good riddance to objective recklessness

THE DEMISE OF WATTEAU v. FENWICK (pg 1-6)

🐵 Jane Goodall: This tribute to the legendary primatologist and conservationist Jane Goodall weaves together her own powerful words on environmental stewardship, the resilience of nature, and the crucial role of youth in driving change. Drawn from her interviews and writings, the piece offers an intimate look at her lifelong mission, as well as links to free academic research on JSTOR. A must-read for anyone interested in Biology, Anthropology, or the Environment!

🖥️ A New Pixel: Researchers at ETH Zurich have invented a "Fourier pixel" that can both control and analyse light — a feat that usually requires two separate devices — by leveraging the physics of light wave interference. This breakthrough could one day lead to screens that also act as cameras, capturing and processing images without needing a separate sensor. A great read if you like Physics.

🤔 Tricky Moral Dilemmas: You pass someone in the street who is in severe need and you are able to help them at little cost to yourself. Are you morally obliged to do so? Explore this question and more interesting philosophical moral dilemmas in this YouTube video by Alex O’Connor. Great if you’re into Philosophy!

Thursday 30th July