Case Law: Mens Rea & Actus Reus Flashcards
R v Latimer
About: Transferred Malice
Facts: The defendant was in an argument in a pub and attempted to hit another man with his belt. He missed only brushing the intended victim but instead striking a woman who stood next to him. The woman was severely injured. The defendant was prosecuted for GBH.
Issue: Should the GBH conviction stand as he had no intention (mens rea) to injure the woman?
Finding: The conviction should stand as it was the same kind of offence (assault to assault). It would not be the case though if the nature of the offence changes say assault to criminal damage.
Fagan v Met Police (1969)
About: Actus Reus
Facts: Fagan was sat in the drivers seat when told to move by a PC. Fagan did so and reversed over the officers foot. The PC told him to move, whereby Fagan swore and turned the engine off. He was convicted of assault police.
Issue: That he could not have assaulted the officer as it was an omission not an act. The driving over the foot was accidental. Essentially there was no mens rea to assault the officer.
Finding: The conviction was upheld in that the crime was not in refusing to move the car but that having driven onto the foot of the officer and realising he was hurting him, had not moved. This was deemed a continuing act of assault. Put them together and at the point the car is on the foot you have both mens rea and actus reus.
R v Miller (1983)
About: Duty to Act/ Omission
Facts: The defendant had been drinking, went hack to the house and whilst falling asleep dropped a lit cigarette. When he awoke he saw the cigarette had started a small fire. Rather than dealing with it, he simply got up and went to another room before falling asleep.
Issue: That could a person failing to act (an omission) be guilty of an offence.
Finding: Yes they could, there is a duty on the defendant to call the fire brigade and his failure to do so or omission meant he was liable.
R v Stone (1977)
About: Duty to Care
Facts: Fanny comes to stay with Ted and Gwendolyn. Fanny had lived with another family member but had fallen out, so moved in with her brother and mistress. Fanny had mental and physical issues but they agreed to look after her. They didn’t keep to their word and she ended up living in appalling conditions and eventually dying.
Issue: Did they have a duty of care to look after funny and keep her alive?
Findings: Of course they did and they were liable for her death as they had a duty to look after her and failed to secure her medical care, which led to her death.
R v McKechnie (1992)
About: Chain of Causation
Facts: McKechnie and others attacked an elderly main causing a brain injury. In hospital it was discovered that the man had a stomach ulcer. This couldn’t be treated owing to the brain damage and as such it burst and the old man died.
Issue: Did McKechnie cause the death of the old man?
Findings: Yes he did, although the ulcer most probably would not have been found prior to the assault, McKechnie needs to take the victim as they found him. The brain damage caused the death because it was substantial in the chain. No brain injury, then he could have had the treatment to save his life.
R v Watson (1989)
About: Chain of Causation
Facts: Watson and Second threw a brick through the window of an elderly and ill person. They were unaware of the victims condition and they went into the house. Once inside they verbally abused the male and left. Within the 90 minutes the male lay dead. Watson was convicted of burglary 9(1)a and manslaughter by unlawful act. The manslaughter was appealed.
Issue: That Watson could not have known the condition of the victim when he threw the brick.
Findings: The Jury felt that if the male had died at the time the brick was thrown through the window when it was clear did not know the condition of the victim. However, when he went in an tormented the victim further (with information on his age/ condition) then this was a continuing act and contributed to his death.
R v Smith (1989)
About: Intervening Act
Facts: The defendant was a soldier who had stabbed another soldier during a fight at the barracks. The victim was taken to receive medical care but whilst being carried he was dropped twice. He then received negligent medical treatment as the medics failed to diagnose a punctured lung. The victim died. The defendant was convicted of murder.
Issue: Did the negligence of the medical staff break the chain of causation from the stabbing to the death?
Findings: The court found that the stab wound was the key cause of the victims death and it did not matter that it was not the sole reason. The chain of causation was not broken. It is rare that an intervening act will break the chain of causation.
R v Kennedy (2007)
About: Intervening Act
Facts: The defendant and victim were residing together in a hostel. The victim came to the defendants room and asked for a ‘bit of heroin’ to help him sleep. The defendant prepared some heroin in a syringe and passed it to the victim for them to self inject. They did so and died several hours later by choking on their own vomit. This was affected by them being on the heroin supplied by the defendant. He was convicted of unlawful manslaughter.
Issue: Did the victim injecting themselves with the heroin break the chain of causation and become an intervening act?
Findings: Conviction overturned. The victim made a decision of their own free will to inject the heroin therefore the act of supplying the drug and the victims death was incomplete.
R v Harvey (2010)
About: Intervening Act
Facts: The defendant threw a TV remote control at his wife. The wife, unknown to the defendant had an unusual artery weakness. The weak artery failed as the result of the impact of TV remote and she sadly died.
Issue: Was the defendant guilty of manslaughter when in almost all other cases they would be guilty of common assault?
Finding: Yes he was guilty of manslaughter, only some harm needs to be foreseen in the unlawful act of manslaughter. There was the risk of common assault and therefore the circumstances were satisfied.
R v Roberts (1971)
About: Intervening Act
Facts: The defendant gave the female a lift in his car. The defendant made sexual advances towards the victim who tried to pull away. The victim, to get away opened the door and jumped out of the moving car sustaining serious injuries.
Issue: Was the defendant guilty of ABH as the victim had jumped out of the car of her own accord?
Finding: Yes, the victims actions had been a direct consequence of the defendants actions unless the action from the victim was so unexpected that no reasonable man could foresee it. Jumping out of a car to get away from a rapist is reasonable in the circumstance.
R v Coney (1882)
About: Principles and Accessories
Facts: A bare knuckle fight was taking place and even though the fighters consent it still constituted ABH. Present were spectators who had come to watch the fight of their own free will.
Issue: Are the spectators liable for aiding and abetting the assault?
Findings: No, the findings were that no ordinary citizen is under any duty to prevent an offence being committed and that simply failing to act does not make them liable for being an accomplice.
R v Calhaem (1985)
About: Counselling
Facts: The defendant was convicted of murder after she had counselled (incitement/ encouragement) another to carry out a murder. The other person however had decided not to do it after listening to Calhaem but eventually went berserk and killed the victim.
Issue: That the counselling was not the connection to the murder but rather the person going berserk.
Findings: Counselling does not require any casual connection between the counselling and actual murder. Basically you can counsel someone to murder someone even if they were going to do it anyway without your encouragement.
R v Becerra (1976)
About: Principles and Accessories
Facts: Two men were burgling a flat. A had given B a knife in case they were disturbed. They were disturbed on the job and A has shouted ‘lets go’ and jumped out of the window. B however remains and murders the occupant. A was convicted of murder as an accessory.
Issue: Can A still be an accessory even though he ran away?
Findings: Yes he can, the actions of A were not said to constitute withdrawal from the common agreement prior to the stabbing. He would need to do something more than saying “lets go” to countermand his prior actions.
R v Tyrrell (1894)
About: Principles and Accessories
Facts: The defendant was tried and convicted of aiding and abetting having encouraged a man to have sex with her as she was under 16.
Issue: Can the girl be an accessory to a law created to protect her and incite a male to have sex with her committing the offence.
Findings: The girl of course cannot be an accessory as the offence is designed to protect her. It would be impossible for an immature girl to consent to rape or sex. The intent is not to protect under 16 year old girls against themselves but the males that would commit it.
