CASES Flashcards
1
Q
Shaw v DPP
A
Shaw v DPP (1962)
RULES OF CRIMINAL LAW- Conduct criminalised by judges
Facts of the case:
- D published a ‘ladies directory’ which listed contact details of prostitutes, the services they offered and nude pictures.
- He was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals.
- D appealed on the grounds that an offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals did not exist.
- The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
- The House of Lords found that it was the court’s duty to preserve the public welfare and recognised that there was a common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, as there did not appear to be a statutory offence which covered the situation.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue for the Court was whether there was such an offence and if the court had the discretion to create it.
- The Court is able to create offences in order to adapt to changing standards in life and in regard to the values and morals of society. An offence that is not written in criminal statute can be recognised as a legal charge.
2
Q
Woolmington v DPP
A
Woolmington v DPP (1935)
RULES OF CRIMINAL LAW- Burden of proof
Facts of the case:
- D’s wife had left him. D asked his wife to come back to him. If she refused, he would commit suicide. For this reason he was carrying a shotgun.
- When D’s wife said she would not return to him, he threatened to shoot himself and brought the gun out to show her that he meant it. As he brought it out, it went off, killing his wife. He claimed this was an accident.
- The judge at the trial told the jury that D had to show the killing of his wife was an accident. This put the burden of proof on D to prove the defence.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue was whether the conviction could be quashed on the grounds that D was denied his right to the presumption of innocence.
- The House of Lords held that the conviction could be quashed. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. - - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the actus reus and mens rea of an offence.
3
Q
Hill v Baxter
A
Hill v Baxter (1958)
ACTUS REUS- Actus Reus
Facts of the case:
- D drove a great distance part-conscious before having an accident. He was charged with dangerous driving. It was suggested that his way of driving wasn’t intentional, as he had an unknown illness, and so he was not able to control his actions.
- He relied on the defence of automatism.
- He was acquitted by the Magistrates Court.
- The prosecution’s appeal was allowed, and D was then found guilty. It was found that he had fallen part-asleep, something he had substantial control over.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- A voluntary act is required as part of the actus reus.
- D was not in a state of automatism, rather, he fell - asleep, so acted voluntarily in recklessness.
- Driving could be involuntary where the driver lost control of the vehicle because he was stung by a swarm of bees, struck on the head or had a heart attack.
4
Q
R v Mitchell
A
R v Mitchell (1983)
ACTUS REUS- Actus Reus
Facts of the case:
- D tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man told him off for this. D hit the man and pushed him.
- The man fell back onto others in the queue including an elderly lady who fell and broke her leg. She later died.
- D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
- He unsuccessfully appealed on the ground that his unlawful act had not been directed at the victim. The Court held that the victim’s death was caused by D’s act.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- An unlawful and dangerous act directed at one person but injuring somebody else can be found to be a charge of assault or manslaughter.
- The actions of the elderly man were involuntary, he had not committed the ‘actus reus’ for any offence.
5
Q
R v Larsonneur
A
R v Larsonneur (1933)
ACTUS REUS- Actus Reus
Facts of the case:
- D’s passport was marked to say that she had to leave England by a certain date.
- She left England on that date for Ireland, but was deported from Ireland and was sent back to England in Irish custody. She was found in England, and this was after the date that her passport allowed her to be in the country.
- She was convicted under the Aliens Restrictions Act for being in the country as an alien to whom leave to land had been refused.
- D appealed and her conviction was upheld.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue is whether it matters that D did not re-enter England on her own accord, but was forced to do so.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and applied strict liability, even though D’s act was not voluntary.
6
Q
R v Gibbins and Proctor
A
R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions
Facts of the case:
- The father of a seven-year-old girl and his partner neglected and starved the child, who died of starvation.
- The defendants were convicted of murder, as they were both under a duty to take care of the child.
- Although the child did not belong to the partner, she had voluntarily undertaken to look after the girl. She therefore had a duty towards the child.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue facing the Court was whether the ‘actus reus’ of murder could be committed via an omission.
- The Court decided that murder can be committed by a failure to act in circumstances where a duty of care to the victim is imposed on the defendant.
7
Q
R v Stone and Dobinson
A
R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions
Facts of the case:
- S’s sister Fanny came to live with the defendants. She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia.
- The defendants, S and D, took her in and agreed to look after her. Whilst staying with them, the victim became unable to care for herself. D made some efforts to care for her, bringing her food and washing her. However, her attempts were not sustained.
- The victim died of malnutrition and the defendants were charged with manslaughter.
Point of law or Legal Principle
- The issue was whether a duty to act could arise in circumstances where D has voluntarily assumed responsibility to care for another person.
- The Court held that the defendants had assumed responsibility for the victim upon agreeing to look after her.
- Their omission to provide this care and to alert the relevant medical authorities to her condition, made them liable for her death.
8
Q
R v Evans
A
R v Evans (2009)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions
Facts of the case:
- Evans purchased heroin and gave it to her half-sister, who self-injected the drug.
- Later it became obvious she had overdosed. Neither the mother nor the half-sister tried to get medical help, as they feared getting into trouble. They checked on the victim at intervals throughout the evening and when they awoke the following morning the victim was dead.
- Both the mother and D were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. The mother clearly owed a duty of care to the victim, as she was her daughter.
- D appealed, claiming that she did not owe a duty of care to a sister. The conviction was upheld.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The point of law is whether the appellant owed a duty of care or a duty to act to her sister.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction on the basis that the appellant had created a state of affairs which she knew or ought reasonably to have known was threatening the life of the victim and therefore owed her a duty.
9
Q
R v Dytham
A
R v Dytham (1979)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions
Facts of the case:
- D was a police officer who was on duty. He stood by whilst three men kicked the victim to death. D took no steps to intervene or to summon help.
- He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public office. He argued that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically requires misconduct.
- D’s conviction was upheld.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The offence of misconduct in a public office can be committed by an omission.If there is a duty to act, then failure to do so is an offence.
10
Q
R v Miller
A
R v Miller (1983)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions
Facts of the case:
- D had fallen asleep on a mattress with a lit cigarette in his hand, following his consumption of alcohol.
- D woke up and noticed that the cigarette had started a small fire. Rather than put out the fire or alert the authorities, D left the room and went back to sleep in another room. The fire then caused damage to the property.
- D was convicted of arson. The Court held that his failure to take any steps to mitigate the fire which he caused, such as, alerting the fire brigade or extinguishing the fire, made D guilty.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue was whether D came under a duty to extinguish the fire or alert the fire brigade due to his creation of the dangerous situation.
- An omission can be treated as ‘actus reus’ if a person creates a situation in which harm to a person or property will occur, and he or she intentionally or recklessly fails to take steps to prevent the harm.
- The House of Lords pointed out that the person who has created a dangerous situation is only expected to take reasonable steps. They do not have to put themselves at risk.
11
Q
DPP v Santana-Bermúdez
A
DPP v Santana-Bermúdez (2003)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions
Facts of the case:
- Prior to being searched by a police officer, D was asked whether they had any needles or sharp objects in their possession. D said no, knowing he did in fact have a needle in his pocket.
- The police officer was stabbed by the needle in D’s pocket and was injured.
- D appealed his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He argued that he had not committed any positive act which caused the police officer’s injury. The Crown Court accepted D’s appeal.
- The DPP appealed to the High Court, seeking a clear answer on how a case such as this should be dealt with in the future.
- The Court held that D had placed the police officer in a dangerous situation, and his omission to correct his statement and avert the dangerous situation constituted the ‘actus reus’ of the offence.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The Court confirmed and applied the dangerous acts doctrine from R v Miller.
- Therefore, where D creates a dangerous situation and omits to avert the consequences of his actions, they are held responsible for any reasonably foreseeable harm which occurs.
12
Q
Airedale NHS v Bland
A
Airedale NHS v Bland (1993)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions
Facts of the case:
- Bland was injured in the Hillsborough disaster when he was seventeen years old and was left in a persistent vegetative state. He remained in this state for over two years with no sign of improvement, whilst being kept alive by life support machines.
- The doctors that were treating Bland were granted approval to remove the tube that was feeding him.
- This decision was then appealed to the House of Lords by the Solicitor acting on Bland’s behalf.
- The appeal was dismissed. On the basis that there was no potential for improvement, the treatment Bland was receiving was deemed not to be in his best interests.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The Court was asked whether it would amount to an unlawful killing for the medical professionals to remove Bland’s feeding tube, given this would inevitably lead to his death.
- Treatment that is necessary to sustain life can be withdrawn from a patient who cannot give informed consent if withdrawal is seen as being in the best interests of the patient. This applies to situations where the patient is unable to express any wishes as to their treatment.
- Euthanasia by a positive act terminating the patient’s life remains unlawful.
13
Q
R v Khan and Khan
A
R v Khan and Khan (1998)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions
Facts of the case:
- The two defendants sold heroin to a 15 year old girl at their flat. This was the first time she had used heroin and she used twice the amount generally used by an experienced user.
- She took the heroin in the presence of the Ds. She fell into a coma and they left the flat leaving the girl alone when it was clear that she required medical assistance.
- They returned to the flat the following day and found her dead.
- They were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and appealed arguing that a drug dealer does not owe a duty of care to summon medical assistance to his client. The convictions were quashed.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The Court of Appeal did not rule out the possibility of a duty of care being owed by drug dealers.
- It stated ‘obiter dicta’ that duty situations could be extended to other areas.
14
Q
R v Pagett
A
R v Pagett (1983)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- D took his sixteen-year-old pregnant girlfriend from her home by force. He then held the girl hostage. Police called on him to surrender.
- D came out, armed with a shotgun, and shot at police who were attempting to arrest him. D was holding his girlfriend in front of him as a shield. The officers returned fire and the girl was killed.
- D was convicted of manslaughter. He appealed against the manslaughter conviction on the issue of causation. The manslaughter conviction was upheld.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- D was guilty because the consequence, his girlfriend getting killed, would not have happened ‘but for’ D’s conduct, using his girlfriend as a shield. D’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence.
15
Q
R v Hughes
A
R v Hughes (2013)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- The victim had self-administered drugs and then set off driving in their car. D’s driving was faultless. There was nothing wrong with his driving, other than his lack of insurance.
- D and the victim collided, and the victim was killed. It was proven in court that it would have been impossible for D to have prevented the victim’s death. D was convicted of causing death while in control of a car without a valid driving licence or uninsured under s.3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
- D appealed this conviction up to the Supreme Court. - - He argued that he did not commit a culpable act which caused the death of the victim.
- Under s.3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988, D must have committed a culpable act which causes the death of the victim. Therefore, his appeal was granted and his conviction quashed.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue was whether a motorist whose driving was faultless could be said to have caused the death of the victim.
- The Supreme Court held that factual causation is not necessarily enough on its own for liability. It distinguished between ‘cause’ in the ‘but for’ sense without which a consequence would not have occurred, and ‘cause’ in the sense that something of something which was a legally effective cause of that consequence. D was the ‘cause’ in the ‘but for’ sense, but it was not enough for it to be a legally effective cause.
16
Q
R v Kimsey
A
R v Kimsey (1996)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- D was involved in a high-speed car chase with a friend. She lost control of the car and the other driver was killed in the crash.
- D was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. The judge told the jury that they did not have to be sure that the appellant’s driving ‘was the principal, or a substantial cause of the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there was something more than a slight or a trifling link’.
- On appeal, it was argued that it was wrong to say that the cause did not have to be a substantial cause. The - - Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Applying the - case of R v Hennigan, the court found that the contribution of the dangerous driving to the death only had to be more than ‘de minimis’.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- D can be guilty if their conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence. D’s conduct need not be a substantial cause, the conduct must be more than ‘de minimis’.
17
Q
R v Blaue
A
R v Blaue (1975)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- D stabbed an 18 year old girl four times when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him.
- She was a practising Jehovah’s witness and refused to have a blood transfusion which would have saved her life.
- D was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and appealed arguing that the girl’s refusal to accept the blood transfusion was a ‘novus actus interveniens’ breaking the chain of causation.
- D’s conviction was upheld. The stab wound and not the girl’s refusal to accept medical treatment was the operating cause of death.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue was whether the victim’s decision, in line with her personal beliefs, to refuse life-saving medical intervention was sufficient to break the chain of causation between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s death.
- The Court of Appeal stated that D must take their victim as they find them, and this includes the characteristics and beliefs of the victim and not just their physical condition.
18
Q
R v Smith
A
R v Smith (1959)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- D, a soldier, got in a fight at an army barracks and stabbed another soldier.
- The medical professionals who first looked at the victim failed to notice the injury and they dropped him twice when moving him to the medical station. The next medial professional then failed to grasp the seriousness of the victim’s injury and prescribed the wrong treatment.
- D was convicted of murder and appealed contending that if the victim had received the correct medical treatment he would not have died.
- D’s appeal was dismissed, and his conviction was upheld. The Court of Appeal held that the death would still be attributed to the defendant if the original injury inflicted remained an operating and significant cause of death.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue was whether the negligence on the part of the doctors was capable of breaking the chain of causation between D’s action in stabbing the victim, and his ultimate death.
- D’s action will remain the legal cause where the original injury caused remains an operating and significant cause. This is the case even if other causes, such as medical negligence, contribute to the injury.
19
Q
R v Cheshire
A
R v Cheshire (1991)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- D shot a man in the stomach and thigh. The man was taken to hospital where he was operated on and developed breathing difficulties. The hospital gave him a tracheotomy.
- Weeks later his wounds were healing and no longer life threatening, however, he continued to have breathing difficulty and died from complications arising from the tracheotomy.
- D was convicted of murder and appealed. His conviction was upheld despite the fact that the wounds were not the operative cause of death. Intervening medical treatment could only exclude the responsibility of D if it was so independent of D’s act and so potent in causing the death, that the jury regarded D’s acts as insignificant.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue was whether D’s acts of shooting the victim had caused the death or whether the chain of causation was broken by the negligent medical treatment that the victim had received following being injured by the shooting.
- The Court clarified when medical treatment constitutes a supervening act which breaks the chain of causation. The treatment provided must be so independent of the defendant’s act and so potent in causing the death that the jury regard the defendant’s acts as insignificant.
20
Q
R v Jordan
A
R v Jordan (1956)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- D stabbed the victim, who died days later in hospital. D was found guilty of the victim’s murder.
- On appeal, it was shown that at the time of the victim’s death the original stab wound had substantially healed, and the victim had in fact died from an allergic reaction to antibiotics given to him whilst in hospital. - - - The medical professionals should have noticed D’s allergic reaction.
- The Court of Appeal quashed D’s conviction for murder. It decided that the causal link between the D’s action and the victim’s death had been broken by the grossly negligent medical treatment. It was held that this was the operative cause of his death.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The question for the Court was whether the hospital’s negligent medical treatment of the victim constituted an intervening act.
- The case establishes that in extreme circumstances a medical intervention will break the chain of causation. - - This occurs in cases where the medical intervention is grossly negligent.
21
Q
R v Malcherek
A
R v Malcherek (1981)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- D stabbed his wife in the stomach, she was hospitalised and had surgery to remove a blood clot. - - During the operation her heart stopped beating before the doctors could reinstate it. She suffered irreparable brain damage.
- She was placed on a life support machine, before it was turned off as there was no chance of her improving. D was still charged with murder.
- The medical treatment that was given was considered normal and in line with approved medical practice. The judge withdrew the issue of causation from the jury as it was clear the initial injuries inflicted were the cause of death. There was no evidence that the original injuries inflicted stopped being the operative cause of death.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Switching off a life-support machine by a doctor when it has been decided that the victim is brain-dead does not break the chain of causation.
22
Q
R v Roberts
A
R v Roberts (1972)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- After a party, D gave the female victim a lift in his car. - - The victim and D had not met before. D began making sexual advances towards the victim which were rejected before attempting to pull off her coat.
- The victim then opened the door and jumped out of the moving vehicle sustaining injuries as a result.
- D was convicted of actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He appealed, and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. It held that the test for whether a victim’s own acts were not to be considered capable of breaking the chain of causation was whether the act was a natural consequence or result of what the assailant did or said.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The issue was whether D was responsible both in fact and in law for the injuries caused by her leaving the moving car.
- If D causes the victim to react in a reasonably foreseeable way, then any injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by D.
23
Q
R v Marjoram
A
R v Marjoram (2000)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- Several people, including D, shouted abuse and kicked the door of the victim’s hostel room. They eventually forced the door open.
- The victim then fell, or possibly jumped, from the window of the room and suffered serious injuries.
- The justices followed the decision in R v Roberts, and D’s conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The act of the victim will not break the chain of causation where it is the natural result of the defendant’s actions and where a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant could have foreseen the victim’s injury as a possible outcome.
24
Q
R v Dear
A
R v Dear (1996)
ACTUS REUS- Causation
Facts of the case:
- D’s daughter accused a man of sexually abusing her. D went after the victim and repeatedly slashed him with a Stanley knife.
- The victim received medical treatment but later re-opened his wounds in what was thought to be a suicide and died two days after the initial attack.
- D was convicted of murder. He claimed a break in the chain of causation, as the victim had committed suicide following the attack.
- D’s conviction was upheld. The wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The court ruled that even if a victim aggravates his wounds sufficiently to cause otherwise avoidable death, the chain of causation is not broken.
25
Q
R v Moloney
A
R v Moloney (1985)
MENS REA- Foresight of consequence
Facts of the case:
- D and his stepfather were engaged in a drunken competition to see which of them could load a shotgun faster than the other. D won, and was then challenged by his stepfather to fire the gun. D pulled the trigger but in his drunken state he did not believe the gun was aimed at the stepfather. He killed his stepfather instantly. Evidence was produced that the pair had a good relationship.
- D was charged with murder and convicted. He appealed and the Court of Appeal allowed appeal to the House of Lords.
- The issue was whether the jury could infer intent if they were satisfied that D foresaw that death or serious injury was a natural consequence of his act.
- D’s conviction for murder was substituted for manslaughter.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- It was held that D’s foresight of the natural consequences of their actions is evidence of intention, not intention in itself. This part of the judgement is still law.
- Lord Bridge stated that jurors should consider 2 questions:
- Whether death/serious bodily harm was a natural consequence of D´s act.
- Whether D foresaw that consequence as being a natural result of that act.
- Whether death/serious bodily harm was a natural consequence of D´s act.
- These are known as the Moloney guidelines.
26
Q
R v Hancock and Shankland
A
R v Hancock and Shankland (1986)
MENS REA- Foresight of consequence
Facts of the case:
- Ds were miners who were on strike. They tried to prevent another miner from going to work by pushing a concrete block from a bridge on to the road along which he was being driven to work in a taxi. Block killed the driver.
- Ds charged with murder. The trial judge provided a direction to the jury based on Lord Bridge’s position in - R v Moloney, telling the jury to ask themselves the 2 questions.
- Issue was whether the direction given in R v Moloney on oblique intent was misleading.
- Jury convicted Ds of murder. Court of Appeal quashed this conviction, this was upheld by the HoL.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- It was held that Maloney’s guidelines were misleading as they didn´t refer to the degree of probability required.
- They should include a reference to the degree of probability and in particular an explanation that the greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended.
27
Q
R v Nedrick
A
R v Nedrick (1986)
MENS REA- Foresight of consequence
Facts of the case:
- D held a grudge against a woman. He went to her house in the middle of the night, poured paraffin through her letter box and set light to it. A child died in the fire.
- D was convicted of murder but Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and was substituted for a manslaughter conviction.
- Issue facing the court was whether:
- Jury is entitled to infer the necessary intention for the mens rea of murder in where it is ‘highly probable’ that the D´s actions cause death/serious bodily harm.
- D must foresee that these consequences are ‘highly probable’ as a result of his actions.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Jury entitled to infer the necessary intention if victim’s death/serious bodily harm was virtually certain as a consequence of the D’s actions and D appreciated this was the case. Both of these elements must be satisfied for the necessary intention to be inferred.
- Jury should ask themselves 2 questions:
- How probable was the consequence of D´s act.
- Did D foresee that consequence.
28
Q
R v Woollin
A
R v Woollin (1998)
MENS REA- Foresight of consequence
Facts of the case:
- D threw his 3-month-old baby towards his pram which was against the wall. Baby suffered head injuries and died. He was charged with murder and convicted.
- Jury could infer intention if the consequence was a virtual certainty and the D had realised this.
- When referred to Court of Appeal the conviction was substituted with manslaughter.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The House of Lords amended one word in the Nedrick test; rather than intention being inferred by a positive answer to the two questions, it only allows the jury to find intention.
- This definition causes some problems, as there are 2 readings of the Woollin direction.
- 1st: foresight of consequence constitutes the requisite intention for the mens rea of murder. (Re A (2000))
- 2nd: foresight of consequence is merely evidence of intention. (Matthews and Alleyne (2003))
29
Q
Matthews and Alleyne
A
Matthews and Alleyne (2003)
MENS REA- Foresight of consequence
Facts of the case:
- Ds dropped the victim from a bridge into a river, knowing the victim couldn´t swim. They watched him ‘dog paddle’ towards the bank but left before seeing whether he reached safety. The victim drowned. Ds were charged with murder.
- The trial judge directed the jury that intention to kill could be proved either by direct intention to kill or by Ds’ appreciation that the victim’s death was a virtual certainty, together with the fact that Ds didn’t intend to save the victim. Ds appealed, arguing this was a misdirection.
- The issue was whether the judge erred when directing the jury.
- Court of Appeal found that Ds’ murder conviction was safe, but the trial judge’s direction was incorrect.
Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Woollin meant that foresight of consequence isn’t intention. It is a rule of evidence.
- If jury decides that D foresaw the virtual certainty of death/serious bodily harm, then they are entitled to find intention but they don’t have to do so.
30
Q
R v Cunningham
A
R v Cunningham (1957)
MENS REA- Subjective recklessness
Facts of the case:
- D ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. This caused gas to escape.
- The gas seeped through small cracks in the wall to the neighbouring property where a woman was poisoned by the gas.
- He was charged under s 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 of ‘maliciously’ administering a noxious thing.
- He appealed on the grounds that ‘maliciousness’ implies a foresight of consequence that he lacked, and his conviction was quashed.
Point of Law or Legal Principle:
- It was held that “maliciously” when indicating mens rea means that D must either intend the consequence or realise that there was a risk of the consequence and still taking that risk (subjective recklessness).
