Actus Reus Flashcards
Kimmins v Nomand 1993
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.
R v White 1910
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.
Hogg v MacPherson 1928
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.
William Hardie 1847
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.
Bone v HMA 2005
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.
R v Instan 1893
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.
HMA v McPhee 1935
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.
MacPhail v Clark 1983
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.
McCue v Currie 2004
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.
HMA v Kerr 1871
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.
Kelso v Brown 1998
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.
Cartmill v Heywood 2000
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.
Ramsay v HMA 1984
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.