Case law Flashcards
DPP v Hammond [2004] Crim LR 851
The freedom of expression was curtailed by an offence under s5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Hammond, an evangelical Christian, displayed signs stating ‘Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism’.
The court, in convicting the defendant, ruled that the interference with rights of freedom of religion and expression was justified by the disorder and violence that displaying signs caused.
Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd v DPP [1973] AC 435, DPP v Withers [1975] AC 842 and Jones [2006] UKHL 16
The courts renounced the power to criminalise conduct through the creation of new criminal offences.
R v R [1991] 1 AC 599
The court removed the matrimonial exception that a husband was able to lawfully rape his wife.
C (A Minor) v DPP [1996] AC 1.
The House of Lords held that they could change the law but outlined very narrow circumstances:
→ Where doubtful finality of solution, be wary of imposing own remedy
→ Changes should not be made unless finality and certainty can be achieved
→ Disputed matters of social policy are less suitable than pure legal matters for court intervention
→ Court to be cautious if parliament has rejected opportunities to change the law
→ Fundamental legal doctrines should not be set aside lightly
R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353
Facts:
Barry Kingston was involuntarily drugged by a friend. While Kingston was intoxicated, his friend encouraged him to perform sexual acts on a 15-year-old boy. The incident had been a set up by his friend. Kingston was convicted of indecent assault. Kingston’s defence was that if he had not been drugged, he would not have acted the way he did.
Issues:
Whether the necessary intent was present when the act was committed by Kingston, even when the defence of involuntary intoxication is available.
Held:
The Court found that although the drugs had essentially done away with Kingston’s inhibitions, this did not negative the necessary mental element which was found to be present in Kingston’s conduct. Further, if an intention arose in circumstances for which Kingston had no blame, it is still an unlawful intent that does not warrant an acquittal.
Mancini v DPP [1942] AC 1
The legal burden is one of the key tenets of criminal law. The Crown Prosecution Service must prove the actus reus and mens rea beyond reasonable doubt: ‘No matter what the charge or where the trial the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.’
The case of Mancini v DPP states that with matters regarding provocation, the legal burden of proof with the standard of proof being beyond reasonable doubt, will remain on the prosecution.
This seems to reiterate the concept that was held in Woolmington by Lord Sankey.
The requirement for the prosecution to prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt has been described as the ‘golden thread’ of English criminal law (Jefferson, 2009).
Carr-Briant [1943] KB 607
When the legal burden falls on the defence the standard of proof is to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.
Treacy v DPP [1971] AC 537
The defendant posted a letter to a person in Germany containing a demand with menaces. She posted it from England and it was received in Germany. She argued that the demand did not take effect until it was received and therefore she could not be tried in England as the offence was committed in Germany.
Held:
The House of Lords held the demand was made as soon as the letter was posted.
Jakeman (1983) 76 Cr App R 228
Where an offence requires mens rea the prosecution must prove that the accused had mens rea at the time he did the act which caused the actus reus.
In Jakeman, J booked suitcases containing drugs onto a series of flights terminating in London. She abandoned them in Paris, allegedly because she no longer intended to import them, but the cases were sent on to London where the drugs were discovered.
The Court of Appeal held that J’s loss of mens rea came too late to prevent her being guilty of an importation offence.
Kaitamaki v The Queen [1985] AC 147
The defendant was charged with rape. His defence was that when he penetrated the woman he thought she was consenting. When he realised that she objected he did not withdraw.
The Privy Council held that the actus reus of rape was a continuing act, and when he realised that she did not consent (and he, therefore, formed the mens rea) the actus reus was still in progress and there could, therefore, be coincidence.
Fagan v Commissioner of the Police [1969] 1 QB 439
The defendant accidentally drove his car on to a policeman’s foot and when he realised, he refused to remove it immediately.
It was held that the actus reus of the assault was a continuing act which, while started without mens rea, was still in progress at the time the mens rea was formed and so there was a coincidence of actus reus and mens rea sufficient to found criminal liability.
Thabo Meli v The Queen [1954] 1 WLR 228
In the case of Thabo Meli v The Queen [1954] 1 WLR 228 a series of individual events were held to be a single act because they were ‘impossible to divide up’.
The appellants struck V over the head with intent to kill him. V’s body was rolled over a cliff to make his death appear to be an accident. In fact V died from exposure and not from the initial blow to the head. The appellants had mens rea when they struck V, but V died from the act of disposal when they did not have mens rea as they believed they were disposing of a corpse.
The Thabo principle was extended in the case of Church [1966] 1 QB 59
The appellants were undoubtedly guilty of attempted murder but the Privy Council upheld the convictions for murder.
Church [1966] 1 QB 59
Facts
- The defendant believed that he had killed the victim through his assault during a fight stemming from her sexual-related insults
- The victim actually drowned after the defendant disposed of the ‘body’ in a river
Issue
Did the defendant cause the death of the victim?
Decision
Yes
Reasoning
- On the application of unlawful act manslaughter to the facts, there was no issue with the application of the coincidence doctrine
- Test for dangerousness in unlawful act manslaughter is an objective assessment of whether the defendant’s act might cause some harm
Church extends the principle in Thabo
Le Brun [1991] 4 All ER 673
The defendant punched his wife on the chin knocking her unconscious. He did not intend to cause her serious harm. The defendant attempted to move her body, and in the course of so doing dropped her, causing her head to strike the pavement. His wife sustained fractures to the skull that proved fatal. The defendant’s appeal against his conviction for manslaughter was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
The case can be distinguished from Church because the act which caused death was accidental, whereas in Church the act of disposal which resulted in death was deliberate.
Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 4 of 1980) [1981] 1 WLR 705
In the course of a struggle, D pushed his girlfriend V over a landing rail onto the floor below and then, believing her dead, cut her throat and dismembered her in the bath so as to dispose of her body. It was impossible to establish whether V died in the original fall or whether he killed her (as in Church) by his subsequent actions. The Court of Appeal held that a manslaughter conviction was possible, despite uncertainty as to the actual cause of death, but only if it could be proved that each of D’s acts was performed with the requisite mens rea for that offence. Since the initial fall may well have killed V, it would not suffice to establish mens rea (such as gross negligence) only in the subsequent act of disposal: the prosecution also had to disprove D’s claim that he had merely pushed her away in a ‘reflex action’ when she dug her nails into him in the struggle on the upstairs landing.
