Actus Reus

Question 1

Ross v HMA

Answer 1

Automatism case
5 judges = overturning a precedent decided by 3 judges.
Intended to overrule cunningham case.
His friends put drugs in his drug without telling him.
He starts stabbing everyone in the pub.
Jury said they believed he had been spiked, and if it hadn’t he wouldn’t have behaved in this way.
Non insane automatism – a valid defence.
Limits to it = forseeable if someone threatens to spike you, even if you think it is a joke.
Self-induced.

Question 2

Ryan v The Queen

Answer 2

‘Reflex’ actions
Accused went to rob a petrol station and had a gun, pulled it on the shop assistant.
He shot them and claimed it was because the victim made a sudden movement and had a reflex action and accidentally pulled the trigger.
Court said, holding a loaded gun with the safety catch off – so it is his own fault and it should have occurred to him that it could have gone off.
If you create a dangerous situation, you have to take responsibility for the consequences

Question 3

Fraser v HMA

Answer 3

Fraser has a history of sleepwalking. He was having a dream that an animal was attacking him so he tried to fight it but he actually killed his 18month old son.
He was acquitted with the promise he would only ever sleep alone.

Question 4

Hugh Mitchell

Answer 4

Innocent agent
1856
Woman attacked by her husband while holding a baby
She squeezed the baby so tight that it died.
Court said it was really the husband that caused the death, and she was an innocent agent.

Question 5

Hogg v MacPherson

Answer 5

Innocent agent
Doesn’t have to be the person causing the damage.
Accused caused damage to a landpost when horse drawn van blown over by an unusually strong gust of wind.
- Horse drawn van was blown over by a violent gust of wind.
- It hit a lamppost, flattening it and breaking the lantern.
- A demand for compensation was made against the driver of the van under a statute which allowed the municipality to recoup costs for ‘accidental or negligent damage’ due to its streetlamp.
- Driver failed to pay and was prosecuted accordingly.
- However it was held an appeal that the breaking on the lantern was not an ‘act’ of the accused, hence no compensation could be demanded.
- Case illustrates that the criminal law generally requires that the accused commit a voluntary act before it will hold her liable, since blame ought only to be attached to behaviours with the correct mens rea.

Question 6

R v Larsonneur

Answer 6

Events beyond the accused’s control
The defendant, a French woman, was deported against her will, from Ireland to England, by the Irish authorities.
Upon her arrival she was immediately charged with the offence of ‘being’ an illegal alien.
Her conviction was upheld despite the fact that she had not voluntarily come to England.
Decision criticised for being beyond her control.

Question 7

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent

Answer 7

Defendant had been drunk in a hospital waiting room.
Was removed and put on the street, police arrested him for being drunk on a public highway
Tried to argue it was not his fault that he had been left there.
HELD: this wasn’t enough. A person fell within the statutory definition if he was on the highway and was “perceived to be drunk” notwithstanding that his presence there was momentary and not of his own volition.

Question 8

Thabo Meli v R

Answer 8

Continuing acts
Accused were in a hut and got a man drunk, hit him on the head and left him outside to die. The man died of exposure.
They claimed that they thought that the man had died due to the blows to the head in the hut.
Tried to argue that there were two separate acts involved: the acts in the hut, and putting the body outside.
There was mens rea and actus reus in the hut, but they tried to argue that they had no mens rea with regards to putting the body outside – therefore they tried to argue that they were not responsible for the death.
Court held that this was a continuing act – you cannot divide an act up like that.

Question 9

Fagan v MPC

Answer 9

Continuing acts
A guy was driving along and the police pulled him over and accidentally parked on officers foot.
The guy took his time in getting off the foot and caused further pain.
Argued this was assault.
Defendant argued that parking on the foot happened before hurting the officer so the intention did not occur at the same time.
Court said parking on the foot was a continued act.

Question 10

Bone v HMA

Answer 10

Omission: duties arising from a relationship
Culpable homicide by omission possible
Mother failed to intervene when her partner was periodically beating her child.
Not intending to kill or wickedly reckless.
Discussion as to whether she was suffering mentally.
Court found her guilty by omission.
She wasn’t convicted of murder, but was found guilty of culpable homicide (she got a lesser sentence because of her mental state at the time).

Question 11

R v Hood

Answer 11

Omission: duties arising from a relationship
H appealed against a sentence of four years’ imprisonment for the manslaughter of his wife, W, by gross negligence.
H had been the sole carer for W who suffered from diabetes and osteoporosis causing brittle bones.
When W sustained a number of broken bones in a fall, H failed to summon medical assistance until some weeks later.
W died shortly after being admitted to hospital in a debilitated state. The post mortem indicated that W’s general poor health and the low standard of care she had received from H contributed both directly and indirectly to her debilitation, which had led to the infection causing her death.
H contended that the sentence was excessive for manslaughter by gross negligence caused by pure omission, as opposed to some positive act. 

HELD: allowing the appeal, that the instant case was one of pure omission. In the light of the authorities, the victim’s reluctance to go to hospital, H’s eventual summoning of medical assistance, and H’s negligence not being the sole cause of his wife’s death, the four-year sentence was manifestly excessive and would be replaced by one of 30 months’ imprisonment.

Question 12

R v Instan

Answer 12

Omission: assumption of responsibility
Someone assumed responsibility for an ill aunt who came to stay.
They started neglecting her and she died
Court said if you undertake responsibility for someone, you can’t just stop
You are responsible for what happens to her
Contract. Could also raise questions of negligence. Doctor failing respond to a medical emergency.

Question 13

Macphail v Clark

Answer 13

Omission: creation of a dangerous situation
About a farmer who set fire to straw in a field and failed to make sure that the smoke coming from the fire didn’t impinge on the motorists driving on the nearby road.
The smoke endangered road users, resulted in the vegetation at the side of the road catching fire, and consequently, a lot of people were injured.
At no time did the accused make any attempt to remedy the dangerous situation which he had caused.
He was found liable for an endangerment offence by omission.

Question 14

R v Miller

Answer 14

Omission: creation of a dangerous situation
Liability was imposed because a guy was smoking a cigarette in a bedroom, dropped it on a mattress and did not put it out.
Guilty by omission.

Question 15

McCue v Currie

Answer 15

Omission: creation of a dangerous situation
Accused entered someone elses caravan looking for alcohol.
He used a cigarette lighter to see what he was doing
It exploded in his hands, so he dropped it and ran away without trying to stop the fire.
Caravan and contents destroyed by the fire
Sheriff at first instance accepted that dropping lighter was accidental but he should be convicted for culpable and reckless fire raising as he didn’t try to stop it.
Appeal upheld and conviction quashed.
Court said accused did not have the correct mens rea for the offence.

Question 16

Mallin v Clark

Answer 16

Omission: creation of a dangerous situation
Guy was being searched by police officer. Didn’t respond to his question of whether there was something sharp.
He didn’t lie but failed to respond to the question, and police officer hurt himself.
Court didn’t convict him of omission as he wasn’t under a duty to tell the police officer anything, because if he was under a duty to answer this would conflict with his right to silence.
Might be different if he lied.

Question 17

Hendry v HMA

Answer 17

Causation: factual cause
‘But for’ test
Accused assaulted the complainant resulting in minor injuries.
Complainant died quite shortly after of a heart attack, which was a prexisiting condition.
Also had angina – just consumed a large amount of food and alcohol and climbed the stairs.

Question 18

Bird v HMA

Answer 18

Causation: legal cause: thin skull rule
Accused thought someone on the street was someone who owed him money. He chased her and alarmed her etc.
She tried to get into a car, but accused pulled her back out and she died of a heart attack.
Clearly didn’t want to kill her but because she was a fragile person, he caused her death.
Court said it was his own fault.
Guilty of her death legally, but that doesn’t make you a murderer.

Question 19

R v Blaue

Answer 19

Causation: legal cause: thin skull rule
Victim was stabbed by the defendant.
Declined blood transfusion because she was a jehovah’s witness.
The defendant was convicted of her death.
He appealed but court said no.
Defendant tried to argue that the victim made an unreasonable choice.
Court said not a viable argument because you cant expect a person to go against long held, strong religious beliefs just because they seem unreasonable to other people.

Question 20

Patrick Slaven

Answer 20

Breaks in legal causation: novus actus interveniens
Intervening acts of the victim
Woman fell of a cliff running away from a rapist.
Tried to argue novus actus.
Held to be culpable homicide.
Had she not been running away from him, she wouldn’t have died there.

Question 21

R v White

Answer 21

Causation: factual cause
‘But for’ test
The defendant placed poison in a glass containing his mother’s drink. She drank the contents of the glass, but died of heart failure before the poison could take effect. The defendant was charged with murder but convicted of attempted murder. With regard to causation in fact, the defendant’s act in placing poison in his mother’s drink did not in any way cause her death.
Applying the “but for” test, the mother would have died anyway, therefore the defendant was acquitted of murder.

Question 22

R v Roberts

Answer 22

Causation: factual cause
‘But for’ test
The complainer was a young lady to whom the appellant had given a lift. During the journey he made a number of improper suggestions to her and touched her breasts. The complainer jumped from the moving car, which was travelling between 20mph and 40mph, suffering grazing and concussion in the escape.
The appellant claimed that the complainer’s action in jumping out of the car had broken the chain of causation and thereby relieved him of liability for his injuries.
HELD: this argument was rejected. Only where the acts of the complainer were seen to be completely unreasonable in the circumstances would it be held that there was a break in the chain of causation.
The accused was still responsible because he had been threatening the victim.

Question 23

R v Williams and Davis

Answer 23

Novus Actus
Hitchhiker jumping out of moving car to escape what he thought was going to be a mugging
Did victim break chain of causation? No.
Very rare for court to blame the victim.
On appeal the decision was quashed as jumping from the car was disproportionate.

Question 24

MacDonald v HMA

Answer 24

Novus Actus
Defendants assaulted a guy, locked him in a flat, and the deceased climbed out of the kitchen window in an attempt to escape, but fell and died.
The deceased had actually taken a lot of amphetamines, and there was no evidence that he knew that the door was locked.
HELD: The fact that it’s uncertain whether he knew the door was locked or not was not relevant – he still died trying to escape as a result of the defendant’s conduct.
Culpable homicide.

Question 25

Khaliq v HMA

Answer 25

Involved children.
Children went to corner shop and bought glue sniffing kits, and suffered different health conditions as a result.
Shop keepers prosecuted for culpable and reckless endangerment.
Question was how can it be said shop keepers caused it, or that children didn’t break chain of causation themselves.
Voluntary actions of children did not break chain of causation.
Sellers of the kits responsible for causing harm that arose.

Question 26

Ulhaq v HMA

Answer 26

Involved adults being sold gas lighter fluid for inhaling purposes. The defence tried to argue that there was a difference between supplying to adults and supplying to children. This was rejected by the courts.
The supplier, was again held to be the cause of the abuse. There was no break in the chain of causation by the adults.

Question 27

Lord Advocate’s Reference (No 1 of 1994)

Answer 27

Given deceased lethal quantity of amphetamine.
Deceased chose the amount herself and took it herself.
Trial judge held that chain of causation had been broken.
Accused was acquitted.
Lord advocate presented petition to high court as to whether that was the correct approach.
Said voluntary action doesn’t break chain of causation.
Very broad application of concept of causation.
Cause is drug.
Person who is sold it is too remote for harm? People react differently to drugs.

Question 28

MacAngus v HM Adv: Kane v HM Adv

Answer 28

MacAngus (Kevin) v HM Advocate featured two accused who raised preliminary pleas regarding the relevancy of their charges of culpable homicide. These preliminary pleas were repelled, and the accused sought an appeal of this decision. The first of the accused supplied ketamine to another individual, who later died from intoxication of the lethal drug.
The second of the accused had injected the deceased with heroin, at her instigation and with her consent.
The courts refused both of these appeals; the ratio decidendi being that the Crown had to prove that the supplying or administration of drugs was, in the circumstances, reckless. The supply alone was not enough.

Question 29

Scott v HMA

Answer 29

?

Question 30

R v Kennedy

Answer 30

K supplied the victim heroin in a syringe. The victim used the syringe themselves and gave it back to K. The victim then died of an overdose. K was convicted of supplying a class A drug, and manslaughter. 
On second appeal, it was held that victims could break the chain of causation. 
Because the appellant did not administer the drug or cause the drug to be administered to, or taken by, the deceased, there was a break in the chain of causation and it was not appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter solely on the basis of supply, where the victim is a fully-informed, responsible adult.

Question 31

R v Paggett

Answer 31

Intervening acts of third parties
Sad case where guy was having a shootout with police officers.
Had a pregnant young girlfriend
Against her will he shielded himself with her from the bullets.
Police officers shot is direct cause of death.
But court said he chose to use her as a shield, created a dangerous circumstance.
Police had a legal duty to respond to his actions.

Question 32

R v Jordan

Answer 32

Medical treatment
The defendant stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to the hospital where he was given anti-biotics after showing an allergic reaction to them. He was also given excessive amounts of intravenous liquids. He died of pneumonia 8 days after admission to hospital. At the time of death his wounds were starting to heal.
Held: The victim died of the medical treatment and not the stab wound. The defendant was not liable for his death.

Question 33

R v Cheshire

Answer 33

Medical treatment
C shot the deceased in the leg and stomach, seriously wounding him.
Deceased was taken to hospital and placed in intensive care. He developed respiratory problems and a tracheotomy tube was placed in his windpipe to assist his breathing. More than two months after the shooting, he died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to obstruction of the windpipe due to the tracheotomy. C was charged with murder. A consultant surgeon gave evidence for the defence at the trial that the leg and stomach wounds were no longer life-threatening at the time of actual death and that death had been caused by negligent medical treatment.
The judge directed the jury that C was responsible for the death unless the medical staff had been reckless in their treatment of the deceased. He was convicted and appealed.
HELD: C’s appeal dismissed.
Even though negligent medical treatment was the immediate cause of death, that should not exclude the accused’s responsibility unless the negligent treatment was so independent of his acts and in itself so potent in causing death that the jury regarded the contribution made by his acts as insignificant. Although the trial judge erred, no miscarriage of justice had occurred, since the medical, and rare, complication was a direct consequence of the accused’s acts which remained a significant cause of death.
C’s actions need not be the sole or even the main cause of death as long as they contributed significantly to that result; medical negligence did not exclude C’s liability unless it was so independent of his acts and so potent as to make his own contribution insignificant. Only in the most extraordinary and unusual case would treatment, whether right or wrong, given in good faith by a generally competent doctor, be regarded as independent of the original injury.

Question 34

Finlayson v HMA

Answer 34

Withholding treatment
Doctor turns off a life support system.
That act causes the death, but in law it isn’t murder or homicide, because it is the original condition that is said to cause death.
Doctor doesn’t break chain of causation if it is in the best interest of the patient.

Question 35

Law Hospital NHS Trust v Lord Advocate

Answer 35

Laid down the criteria for a patient in a persistent vegetative state.
Doctors who withdraw life support treatment from patients who are in a persistent vegetative state will be immune from prosecution for homicide.
Can stop artificial feeding but can’t administer deadly drugs, for example.

Question 36

HMA v Kerr

Answer 36

Omission

• Several youths were involved in assaulting a girl in a country lane with intent to rape.
• One accused did not participate, but watched from a hedge and was charged with them.
• He was acquitted on the basis that there was no legal duty for him to intervene.
• Shows how legality and morality do not always coincide.

Question 37

R v Gibbon & Proctor

Answer 37

Common law obligations

• Charged with the murder of Mr Gibbins’ 7 year old daughter.
• Neglected to feed or look after her and so she died.
• Gibbins was liable because he had a duty of care as a parent, and Proctor was liable because she had acted as the child’s mother and had been given money to feed her.

Question 38

Lewis

Answer 38

English drugs possession
Defendant was illegally subletting a house he was claiming benefits for.
Somebody living there had some drugs in a tape recorder.
The guy never went to the guys house.
When the police found the drugs, the renter was held responsible because sometimes the law will impute knowledge to you.
Court said he was legally in control of the property because he was the named tenant.
Doesn’t look at the subjective level of knowledge, seeks to impute knowledge on you.

Question 39

Salabiaku v France

Answer 39

Got asked by airport security the standard baggage questions.
He said it was his bag and he had checked it.
And then it turned out to have drugs inside.
He denied knowledge of this.
Had his fair trial rights been impeded upon because he was presumed guilty because mens rea didn’t have to be shown?

Question 40

R v G

Answer 40

15 year old boy had sex with achild who was 12 but said they were also 15. Convicted of rape of ayoung child.

Question 41

Gill v Lockhart

Answer 41

Accused charged with unlawful possession of cannibal resin.
Police had found cannabis in his golf bag.
He admitted it was his, but had no recollection of putting the drug into his golf bag.
Said it must’ve been at least 2 years ago, and he did it to hide it from his parents.
He was still convicted.
He appealed.
Held that the knowledge that he did have when he initially placed cannabis into the bag was enough to constitute possession of an unlawful drug.
About whether you knew you had it in the first place.