Actus Reus Flashcards

1
Q

Kimmins v Nomand 1993

A

The policeman asked the man if he had anything in his pockets. The man said no. Then the policeman searched the man, he found needles and he injured himself. The accused argued that there was no action - AR. High Court appeal refused. Sheriff decision affirmed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v White 1910

A

The man poisoned his mother’s tea/drink, however she died from heart attack, it was also indicated from medical evidence. The man had MR, he was not guilt of murder but for attempted murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Hogg v MacPherson 1928

A

The involuntary action. In Edinburgh during a windy weather the glust of wind moved the van. The van broke a glass lamp. The court decided that this was not caused by his act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

William Hardie 1847

A

An omission; result crime; neglect of duty. Assistant inspector of poor was charged with culpable homicide. He ignored Margaret Cameron’s applications. She was a beggar.
Hence, she died of starvation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Bone v HMA 2005

A

The accused did not protect her child. She was charged with culpable homicide. Trial judge misdirected the jury. Appeal was allowed against the conviction (and sentence). Conviction quashed. The context is specific to the person liable of the crime (subjective). Aspects of personal disorders, disability, low intellect. Nor a reasonable person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Instan 1893

A

Niece was living with her aunt and from her aunt’s money. When her aunt was ill (gangrene in leg) she did not provide her with food and water. Therefore she accelerated her death. She was guilty of manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

HMA v McPhee 1935

A

The man assaulted a woman and then left her on the field to die. He was charged with murder. (Lord Mackay) held that a conviction for murder could exist if it proved that he wickedly, exposed victim to the weather, so that she died of exposure. He was guilty of culpable homicide. Responsibility of omission.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

MacPhail v Clark 1983

A

Field, put the fire on the straw next to road. This indicates reckless indifference as to a foreseeable outcome of harm to others. Bad visibility on the road, two vehicles collided. Responsibility of omission.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

McCue v Currie 2004

A

The man entered the caravan with intent to steal alcohol. He illuminated the premise with his lighter. Accidentally he dropped the lighter. This caused fire. He was aware of it and did nothing. He was convicted and then appealed. The appeal was allowed. Doing illegal act does not matter. Accidental fire is not enough of establishing mens rea. Responsibility of omission.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

HMA v Kerr 1871

A

The group assaulted a woman with intention to ravish. One of the man just look, he did not speak or act toward victim. He was acquitted on the base that there was no legal duty on him to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Kelso v Brown 1998

A

The man was drunk and his wife took him by her car from his brother house. She left him in the car where he slept in front passenger seat. The keys were in ignition, the heater and lights were on when the police found him in the morning at 4.50 am. He was convicted and appealed. His conviction was quashed based on that there was nothing which could indicate that he would have taken immediately control over the car.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Cartmill v Heywood 2000

A

The man was asleep in driver seat with ignition keys in his hand. He was charged on the basis of the Road Traffic Act 1988. His defence was rejected. Hence his appeal was rejected as it could not be said the whenever he would woke up he would not be driving a car.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Ramsay v HMA 1984

A

The small quantity of heroin was found in possession of the man, he was convicted and sentenced for 4 years as it was decided that drug addiction is a serious crime. On appeal it was decided that the drug addiction is not a crime,sentence reduced to 2 years.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly