Cases Flashcards
Woolmington v DPP [1935]
It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty, not for the defendant to prove he is innocent
Larsonneur (1933)
The actus reus was “being in the UK” – state of affairs offence
Winzar v CC of Kent (1983)
“Every person found drunk on a highway or public place is guilty of an offence” – state of affairs offence
R v Dytham [1979]
Certain job positions have a duty of care to others
Dytham was a constable who saw a man being kicked so badly that he later died. D did not attempt to stop the disturbance but drove away without calling for assistance. He was found guilty of wilfully neglecting to perform his duty.
R v Pittwood [1909]
Duty of care based on contract
Pittwood was employed as level crossing gate-keeper. He failed to close the gate when he went to lunch. A train came, collided with a passing cart and the train driver was killed. P’s failure was the actus reus. His duty arose out of the contract. Convicted of manslaughter.
R v Instan [1893]
Duty of care based on implied contract
Instan omitted to give food to her aunt, a helpless invalid, for 12 days before her aunt’s death, nor did Instan seek medical aid or nursing assistance. Nevertheless, Instan continued to stay at her aunt’s house and was maintained by her aunt’s money. Instan was convicted of manslaughter and her conviction was upheld. Lord Coleridge CJ stated, “…. There was a common law duty imposed upon the prisoner which she did not discharge.”
R v Gibbins & Proctor [1918]
Parents owe a duty to their children to act to save them from harm
Hood (2003)
spouses owe a duty to each other
Nicholls [1874]
Duty of care based on assumed responsibility
Brett J directed the jury that “if a person chooses to undertake the care of a person who is helpless either from infancy, mental illness or other infirmity, he is bound to execute that responsibility and if he by gross negligence allows him to die he is guilty of manslaughter.”
R v Stone & Dobinson [1977]
Duty of care based on assumed responsibility
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993]
Doctors owe a duty of care to patients
A doctor’s duty is to act in the best interests of the patient. The House held that where the patient was incapable of communicating, there was no absolute obligation on doctors to prolong his life. The question was what was in the best interests of the patient. Where responsible and competent medical opinion is of the view that continuation of treatment is not in the patient’s best interests then discontinuation of life-preserving treatment will not involve a breach of the doctor’s duty.
R v Miller [1983]
Duty of care to counteract danger you create
M, a squatter, fell asleep in a bed whilst holding a lit cigarette. He awoke to find the mattress smouldering. He realised it was his cigarette which caused the fire but all he did was to move to another room and fall asleep. House damaged by fire. M convicted of arson
Kimsey (1996)
Legal causation
De minimis rule
Benge (1865)
Legal causation
Actions of third parties
If defendant significantly contributed to victim’s harm, they’re liable even if a third party contributed to harm
Hayward (1908)
Legal causation
Thin skull rule
Fact V had a pre-existing condition that made her more susceptible to death was irrelevant, whether or not D knew of the condition
Blaue (1975)
Legal causation
Thin skull rule application
Thin skull rule applies to pre-existing medical and psychological conditions
Jehovah’s Witness blood transfusion case
R v Kennedy (No.2) (2008)
Novus actus interveniens
Drug administration
D did not administer injection or cause victim to do so - victim made voluntary and informed decision to inject drug - chain of causation broken
Pagett (1983)
Novus actus interveniens
3P acting non-voluntarily/reflexively
Armed D used GF as shield; police shot and killed GF; D liable. Police shot in self-defence - wasn’t voluntary
Jordan (1956)
Novus actus interveniens
Improper/negligent medical treatment
Only breaks chain of causation if it is palpably wrong, or overwhelming, or independent and potent
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]
Coincidence principle
AR & MR must align at same time/place
In this case, AR/MR did not align - P argued the AR was continuing act. Could also be prosecuted under Miller
Battery can be a continuing act
Mohan [1976]
Definition of direct intention
“a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused’s power, the commission of the offence which it is alleged the accused attempted to commit, no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not”
Woolin (1998)
Definition of indirect intention/oblique intent
the consequence is actually virtually certain to occur (objective test); and
D appreciates that it is a virtual certainty (subjective test).
R v G (2004)
Recklessness definition
A person acts recklessly with respect to:
(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
and in the circumstances known to him, it is unreasonable to take the risk.”
Barnet London BC v Eastern Electricity Board [1973]
Definition of destroy
Requires elements of finality and totality and must go further than merely a material change
Roe v Kingerlee [1986]
Definition of damage
More context dependent. Not limited to permanent damage. Smearing mud graffiti on wall of police cell was criminal damage.
R v Jogee [2016]
MR for Accessorial Liability
Inward and outward MR
Inward: Conduct must be voluntary, and must intend to assist/encourage/cause principal offence
Outward: Must know essential matters for offence, and must intend P to act with MR required for principal offence
Longbottom (1849)
Causation - victim contributory negligence
Generally, the victim’s own contributory negligence will not break the chain of causation and absolve the defendant from liability, unless the negligence is so great as to prevent the defendant’s act from being a significant cause of the death.
Deaf guy walking in the middle of the road and is hit/killed by a car
R v Roberts [1971]
Causation - victim escaping
The foreseeability of the action is key to whether V’s actions will break the chain of causation. If V’s actions in trying to escape from D’s threats are regarded by the jury as so ‘daft’ (or ‘unexpected’ or ‘unreasonable’) that they could not be reasonably foreseen then the chain is broken and D escapes liability.
V jumps from moving car to avoid D
Holland (1841)
Causation - victim self-neglect
If V mistreats or neglects to treat injuries perpetrated by D it will not break the chain of causation.
Man refuses to have finger amputated after it’s cut in a fight. He gets tetanus and dies.
Thornton v Mitchell (1940)
Accomplice liability
Generally, the principal offence must have been committed for the accomplice to be liable
Bus driver kills pedestrians at conductor’s signal; bus driver not found to have been negligent for following signal, so conductor not liable as accomplice
