Regina v. Bradshaw
Leicester Spring Assizes
14 Cox Crim. Cas. 83 (1878)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Herbert Dockerty was a soccer (football) player for English team Ashby, while William Bradshaw (defendant) was a football player for Coalville. Dockerty and Bradshaw were playing a football game governed by an association’s specified rules. About 15 minutes into the game, Dockerty was “dribbling” the ball in the direction of a goal when he was met by Bradshaw running toward him at a bit of an angle to get the ball. Both players were running at considerable speed. Although there was some dispute over the facts, Dockerty may have kicked the ball beyond Bradshaw, and Bradshaw jumped in the air and kneed Dockerty in the stomach, “charging” Dockerty. Dockerty was severely injured on contact, and he died the next day. The government (plaintiff) criminally prosecuted Bradshaw, and the court held a jury trial. The witnesses agreed on major events but disagreed on certain particulars. Some evidence supported that Bradshaw had no right to charge at Dockerty because Dockerty had already kicked the ball past Bradshaw. Other evidence supported that Bradshaw was justified in charging because his charge and Dockerty’s kick were simultaneous but that it was unfair of Bradshaw to charge with a protruding knee. One umpire opined that “nothing unfair had been done.” The jury was instructed on the charged crime.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bramwell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
