1B - Murder - Case List

Question 1

Re A (2000)

Answer 1

FACTS:
- Doctors wanted to operate on conjoined twins but knew this would cause one of them to die.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- Court thought that Woollin made it law that foresight of consequences is intention

Question 2

R v Gibbins and Proctor

Answer 2

The failure to feed victim was enough for the AR of murder

This case meant an omission was enough for the actus reus.

Question 3

Attorney-General Ref No.3 of 1994 - 1997

Answer 3

Held: it was not possible for a defendant to have the mens rea to kill or seriously injure a foetus.
- This was because a foetus does not have a separate existence from its mother.

Question 4

R v Blaue

Answer 4

Establishes thin skull rule

Question 5

R v Vickers (1957)

Answer 5

Held: The defendant can be guilty even if they did not intend to kill.
- This was later confirmed in R v Cunningham (1981).

(Implied malice aforethought)

Question 6

DPP v Smith (1961)

Answer 6

The House of Lords decided it was held grievous bodily harm meant “really serious harm”.

Question 7

R v Mohan

Answer 7

• The defendant refused to stop when a policeman signalled for him to do so.
• Instead, he drove into the officer.
• This shows a direct intention to scare/injure the police officer.

Question 8

What do R v Vickers and R v Cunningham show?

Answer 8

Someone can be guilty of murder even if they didn’t intend to kill.

Question 9

R v Nedrick (1986)

Answer 9

FACTS:
- Poured paraffin through letter box, causing fire in the house in which a child died
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- Jury not entitled to infer the necessary intention unless sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty and that the defendant appreciated this

Question 10

R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Answer 10

FACTS:
- Miner dropped lumps of concrete onto road, killing taxi driver.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- The greater the probability of a consequence…
- the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and therefore…
- the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended.

Question 11

Woollin (1998)

Answer 11

FACTS:
- Threw baby at pram, causing its death.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- The direction in Nedrick should not use the word ‘infer’. Instead, the jury should be told it is entitled to find intention

Question 12

Re A (2000)

Answer 12

FACTS:
- Doctors wanted to operate on conjoined twins but knew this would cause one of them to die.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- Court thought that Woollin made it law that foresight of consequences is intention

Question 13

R v Kimsey

Answer 13

“More than a slight or trifling link”

Question 14

Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 14

FACTS:
- Threw the victim into river where he drowned.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- Woollin meant that foresight of consequences is not intention. It is a rule of evidence.
- If a jury decides that the defendant foresaw the virtual certainty of death or serious injury, then it is entitled to find intention but it does not have to do so.

Question 15

R v Pagett

Answer 15

Establishes the “but for” test

Question 16

R v Woollin

Answer 16

The jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find a necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty of the defendant’s actions.

Question 17

Moloney

Answer 17

Held that foresight of consequence is only evidence from which intention may be inferred.

Question 18

What are the cases Latimer (1886), Pembliton (1874) and Gnango (2011) examples of?

Answer 18

Transferred malice

Question 19

Thabo Meli v R (1954) and Church (1965)

Answer 19

Held: To be guilty of an offence, the required MR and AR need to be combined in a series of acts.

Question 20

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

Answer 20

When the two elements (AR and MR) were present together, the offence had been committed.
(Principle of coincidence of AR and MR).

Question 21

R v Le Brun (Lord Lane quote)

Answer 21

Lord Lane (CJ):

• “It seems to us that where the unlawful application of force and the eventual act causing death are parts of the same sequence of events, the same transaction, the fact that there is an appreciable interval of time between the two does not serve to exonerate the defendant from liability.”
• ‘It would be possible to express the problem as one of causation. The original unlawful blow to the chin was a “causa sine qua non” of the later actus reus. It was the opening event in a series which was to culminate in death: the first link in the chain of causation, to use another metaphor.’