Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law AQA Criminal > cases > Flashcards

cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

R v Gibbons and Proctor

A

-duty to act
-duty arising from a special relationship
-mum and dad let their 7 y/o starve to death, neglected their duty of care
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v Stone and Dobinson

A

-duty to act
-duty arising from an assumption of care
-stone’s sister was anorexic, she came to live with the defendants, they neglected to care for her and she died
-charged with GNMS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R v Pittwood

A

-duty to act
-duty arising from a contract of employment
-d worked for a railway company controlling a gate, left it open during lunch break, oncoming train hit someone crossing, they died
-charged with manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Dytham

A

-duty to act
-duty arising from an official position
-D (a police officer) stood and watched as a bouncer kicked a man to death
-charged with misconduct in a public office

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v Miller

A

-duty to act
-duty to avert a danger of one’s own making
-d fell asleep with a lit cigarette in his mouth, woke up to find the mattress on fire, didn’t put it out, moved to another room and fell back asleep, caused £800 damage
-charged with arson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Dobson and Norris

A

-retrospective liability
-re-trial of a murder under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for ‘new, compelling, substantial and reliable’ evidence
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Blaue

A

-thin skull rule
-v refused d’s sexual advances, he stabbed her 4 times, she refused a blood transfusion at hospital for religious reasons, died
-charged with manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v Kimsey

A

-de minimus conduct was more than minimal cause
-car race, v’s car slipped, hit D’s car, D went into oncoming traffic, died
-charged with a 4 year driving suspension and 2 years imprisonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Cheshire

A

-medical intervention rule (doesn’t break chain of causation)
-d shot v, v was taken to hospital, had a breathing tube for 4 weeks, caused issues, died of a narrowed windpipe
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Smith

A

-‘operating and substantial cause’ rule
-d (soldier) stabbed v (soldier), v was taken by medics, dropped on the way, given a misdiagnosis (punctured lung), died
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Williams

A

-intervening act rule
-ds picked up a hitchhiker (v), v jumped out of a 30mph car, hit head, died, ds were supposedly trying to rob v
-case was quashed because there wasn’t enough evidence ds were trying to rob

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v Mitchell

A

-transferred malice AND voluntariness
-d queue jumped at a post office, elder man took issue, d pushed him, he fell onto old woman who broke leg and died
-charged with manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R v Latimer

A

-transferred malice
-pub fight, d tried to hit the other with his belt, missed, hit woman sitting next to them
-charged with malicious wounding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

R v Pemblinton

A

-transferred malice
-d ejected from pub, physical altercation on street, threw large stone at other, missed, smashed a window
-quashed conviction, transferred malice only occurs if AR stays the same

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Mohan

A

-direct intent
-d drove car when PO told him to stop, almost hit PO, judge said d must have been reckless to the consequences
-charged with attempted ABH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Woollin

A

-oblique intent
-d threw his 3 m/o baby to the ground when it wouldn’t stop crying, died of a fractured skull
-charged with manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

R v Cunningham

A

-subjective recklessness
-d removed gas meter to take the money inside, it caused a gas leak in his neighbours house, v died from gas poisoning
-conviction was quashed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Callow v Tillstone

A

-strict liability offences
-butcher sold unfit meat, but had had the meat certified as safe by a vet
-charged with exposing unfit meat for sale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

R v Blake

A

-strict liability offences
-d operated a pirate radio station without a license, radio bands are for emergency services only
-charged with using wireless telegraphy equipment without a license

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Harrow LBC v Shah

A

-strict liability offence
-lottery ticket sold to someone under 16
-charged with selling a ticket to a child under 16 under s13 of the National Lottery Act 1993

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Fagan v MPC

A

-contemporaneity rule
-d accidently drove over a PO’s foot, PO shouted at him to move, he refused
-charged with assaulting a PO in the execution of his duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

R v Clegg

A

-murder
-AR - ‘unlawful’ (lack of wicked motive doesn’t make it lawful)
-soldier used excessive force, killed a joyrider who failed to stop at a checkpoint
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

R v Inglis

A

-murder
-AR ‘human being’ and ‘death’
-mother killed her son who was in a vegetative state following an accident
-charged with murder
-‘a disabled life is not one jot less precious than the life of an able bodied person’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

DPP v Smith

A

-murder
-MR ‘intent to cause really serious harm’
-d flung a PO off their car, PO died
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

R v Asmelash

A

-voluntary manslaughter
-loss of control
-d insulted and taunted by V, D was drunk, stabbed v to death
-LoC isn’t available with voluntary intoxication, charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

R v Dawes

A

-voluntary manslaughter
-loss of control
-d found v asleep with his wife, attacked him with a bottle, v took the bottle, d went and got a kitchen knife and killed v
-qualifying triggers
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

R v Rejmanski

A

-voluntary manslaughter
-loss of control
-d was a soldier who was being taunted for his service in afghanistan
-qualifying triggers- PTSD
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

R v Clinton

A

-voluntary manslaughter
-loss of control
-d killed his wife following taunts of affairs and mental illness
-charged with murder?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

R v Dietschmann

A

-voluntary manslaughter
-diminished responsibility
-d and his friends were drinking, v accidently broke d’s watch that was given to him by his dead aunt, d killed him
-abnormality and alcohol
-charged with manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

R v Golds

A

-voluntary manslaughter
-diminished responsibility
-d had a history of mental disorder, killed his partner with 22 stab wounds following an argument
-substantial impairment
-charged with murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

R v Carey

A

-involuntary manslaughter
-unlawful act manslaughter - causation
-v ran 100 meters away from bullies, collapsed, died of ventricular fibrillation, v had a heart disease
-conviction was quashed, cause of death was too remote

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

R v Lamb

A

-involuntary manslaughter
-unlawful act manslaughter, MR (and assault, apprehension)
-a boy shot and killed another while playing with a gun they thought wouldn’t go off
-no intent
-charged with manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

R v Lowe

A

-involuntary manslaughter
-unlawful act manslaughter
-d failed to call a doctor for his sick child, child died
-must be an unlawful act for UAMS, not an omission
-charged with gross negligence manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

R v Church

A

-involuntary manslaughter (and contemporaneity rule)
-unlawful act manslaughter
-during a fight, d knocked v unconscious, tried to wake her for 30 minutes, thought she was dead, threw her body into a river, cause of death was drowning
-charged with manslaughter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

R v Broughton

A

-involuntary manslaughter
-gross negligence manslaughter
-d failed to summon help after giving his girlfriend hallucinogenic which caused her death
-conviction quashed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

R v Adomako

A

-involuntary manslaughter
-gross negligence manslaughter
-d was an anaesthetist who failed to notice a disconnected oxygen pipe, caused v’s death
-charged with GNMS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

R v Misra and Srivastava

A

-involuntary manslaughter
-gross negligence manslaughter (breach must be gross)
-v was d’s patient, v developed an undiagnosed and untreated infection in wound, despite obvious symptoms
-charged with GNMS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

DPP v K

A

-battery
-AR - application
-a school boy took acid from science class and hid it in a hand dryer, intending to come back to get it, someone used the hand dryer, got burns
-application doesn’t need to be direct
-charged with s47

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Logdon v DPP

A

-assault
-AR - apprehend
-d pointed an imitation gun at v, who was terrified, then told her it wasn’t real
-doesn’t need to be an actual threat for assault
-charged with assault

40
Q

Tuberville v Savage

A

-assault
-words can negate an assault
-d put hand on sword, said ‘if it were not assize time, i would not take such language from you’
-no trial

41
Q

R v Parmenter

A

-assault
-MR - recklessness
-d assaulted his baby son
-even if he didn’t know how to hold a baby he should have seen the risk, charged with ABH

42
Q

R v Chan-Fook

A

-s47
-french student staying in mrs fox’s house, her engagement ring went missing, her husband accused v, slapped multiple times, locked upstairs, threatened more violence, v tried to escape, fractured wrist, dislocated hip
-conviction quashed

43
Q

R v Roberts (1)

A

-s47
-‘causation’ and MR
-v jumped out of a moving car to escape d’s sexual advances
-escape from physical danger doesn’t break the chain of causation
-charged with s47 and sexual assault

44
Q

C v Eisenhower

A

-s18 + s20 ‘wounding’
-pellets from d’s ari gun caused bruising and internal blood vessel rupturing in v’s eye, but no broken skin
-charged with ABH?

45
Q

R v Brown and stratton

A

-s20
-GBH can be multiple ABHs
-v had a broken nose, lost 3 teeth, facial swelling, lacerations to eye and a concussion
-charged under s20

46
Q

R v Bollom

A

-s20
-GBH can be lesser injuries on a vulnerable person
-17m/o baby had various bruises and abrasions
-on appeal, charged with s47

47
Q

R v Burstow

A

-s20 +s18
-GBH can be psychiatric injury
-d harassed v, as a result she suffered severe depression
-charged with assault

48
Q

R v Savage

A

-s20 MR
-foreseeability
-d threw a pint of beer over v in a pub, the glass slipped out of d’s hand and cut v’s wrist
-charged with s47

49
Q

R v Morris

A

-theft
-AR s3 ‘appropriation’ interfering with owners rights
-d swapped price labels in a supermarket
-charged with theft

50
Q

R v Smith (and others)

A

-theft
-AR s4 ‘property’ can include illegal property
-d and his friends robbed heroin off of V
-charged with robbery

51
Q

R v Turner

A

-theft
-AR s5 ‘belonging to another’ ‘in possession or control’
-d took his car back from a garage without paying for the repairs
-charged with theft

52
Q

R v Lawrence

A

-theft
-MR s2(1)(b) - dishonesty
-d (a taxi driver) tok £7 for a £1 fare from a foreign passenger who held open their wallet
-charged with theft

53
Q

R v Small

A

-theft
-MR s2(1)(c) dishonesty
-d took a car that had been left for 2 weeks with a flat battery, windows down, no petrol and the keys in ignition
-conviction quashed

54
Q

R v Velumyl

A

-theft
-s6 intention to permanently deprive
-d took £1050 from a safe intending to return it
-unless the exact notes could be returned it amounted to ITPD
-charged with theft

55
Q

Ivey v Genting Casinos

A

-theft
-s2 dishonesty test
-d was a professional gambler, won £7.7mil at a casino, owners refused to pay claiming he cheated
-created the dishonesty test

56
Q

R v Robinson

A

-robbery
-MR s2(1)(a) - dishonesty
-d was owed £7 by v’s wife, d approached v with a knife, while arguing v dropped £5, d took it
-conviction (for robbery) quashed

57
Q

R v Lockley

A

-robbery
-time of force (force used to escape is treated as force used to steal)
-d caught shoplifting by security, used force to escape
-charged with robbery

58
Q

R v Hale

A

-robbery
-continuing act
-d1 and d2 broke into a house, d1 tied up v while d2 took items from upstairs
-charged with robbery

59
Q

R v Clouden

A

-robbery
-slight force, left to jury
-d snatched a handbag out of v’s hands
-charged with robbery

60
Q

R v Geddes

A

-attempts
-merely preparatory
-d found in a boys toilets, ran away when seen, found a backpack nearby with tape, knife and rope (attempted false imprisonment)
-conviction quashed

61
Q

R v Campbell

A

-attempts
-merely preparatory
-d approached a post office with a knife and threatening note (attempted robbery)
-retrial?

62
Q

R v Jones (1)

A

-attempts
-more than merely preparatory
-d got into v’s car and pointed a shotgun at him (attempted murder)
-charged with attempted murder

63
Q

R v Boyle and Boyle

A

-attempts
-more than merely preparatory
-d1 and d2 found standing next to a door with broken locks and hinges
-charged with attempted burglary

64
Q

R v Khan

A

-attempts
-MR
-d convicted for attempted rape (only had to be proven he was trying to have sex, as v didn’t consent)
-charged with attempted rape

65
Q

R v Whybrow

A

-attempts
-MR ‘intent to kill’ (no intent to cause really serious harm satisfies murder MR in attempts, it would be GBH)
-d wired a soap dish next to the bath to electrocute V
-charged with attempted murder

66
Q

R v Jones (2)

A

-attempts
-impossible attempts (factually impossible)
-d tried to solicit underage girl for sex, but it was actually an undercover police woman
-charged with inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity

67
Q

R v Shivpuri

A

-attempts
-impossible attempts (factually impossible)
-d (a drug courier) was arrested with what he thought was heroin, but was actually a harmless vegetable substance
-charged with attempting to be knowingly concerned in dealing and harbouring heroin

68
Q

R v Kemp

A

-capacity defences
-insanity
-k had a hardening of the arteries which restricted the blood flow to his brain, causing unconsciousness, making him hit his wife with a hammer
-‘disease of the mind’
-not guilty by reason of insanity

69
Q

R v Quick

A

-capacity defences
-insanity
-d took insulin but didn’t eat enough food with it, attacked a patient
-taking insulin was an external source, not suffcient
-conviction quashed?

70
Q

R v Clarke

A

-capacity defences
-insanity
-d took supermarket items and forgot to pay, she said it was due to her diabetes
-‘defect of reason’, she was confused not insane
-conviction quashed

71
Q

R v M’Naghten

A

-capacity defences
-insanity
-m killed government official while suffering extreme paranoia
-created the M’Naghten rules
-not guilty by reason of insanity

72
Q

R v Burgess

A

-capacity defences
-insanity
-d attacked his girlfriend after falling asleep
-‘disease of the mind’ - sleepwalking is internal
-not guilty by reason of insanity

73
Q

Bratty v A-G for N.Ireland

A

-capacity defences
-automatism
-d strangled his girlfriend during a ‘blackout’
-created the legal test for automatism by lord denning
-charged with murder?

74
Q

A-G Reference No.2 1992

A

-capacity defences
-automatism
-truck driver drove in a trance-like state along the motorways hard shoulder, hit and killed 2 people
-‘total loss of control’, d still had some, defence failed
-trail acquitted

75
Q

R v Coley

A

-capacity defences
-automatism
-d was a heavy cannabis user and a gamer, stabbed his neighbour to death during a brief psychotic episode
-no automatism due to the external factor of cannabis

76
Q

R v T

A

-capacity defences
-automatism
-d took part in a robbery 3 days after being raped, argued she was in a dream-like state and suffered PTSD
-external stress can give rise to automatism if severe enough
-automatism defence given

77
Q

Hill v Baxter

A

-capacity defences
-automatism
-d said he lost consciousness as a result of an illness while driving, couldn’t remember what happened
-charged with dangerous driving

78
Q

DPP v Majewski

A

-capacity defences
-intoxication
-d drank excessively and took drugs then got into a fight
-abh is a basic intent crime so drinking amounts to being reckless
-charged with ABH

79
Q

Attorney General for NI v Gallagher

A

-capacity defences
-intoxication
-d decided to kill his wife, wet to buy whiskey and a knife, drank the whiskey and killed her
-mens rea formed pre-intoxication, dutch courage
-charged with murder

80
Q

R v KIngston

A

-capacity defences
-intoxication
-d, a known paedophile, drank a drugged coffee then abused a young boy
-despite involuntary intoxication, d still knew what he was doing
-charged with indecent assault

81
Q

McGhee

A

-capacity defences
-intoxication
-m pleaded automatism against ABH and s18 charges, he drunk himself into an involuntary state
-intoxication was voluntary, even if he was in an involuntary state
-charged with ABH and s18

82
Q

R v Taj

A

-necessity defences
-self-defence
-d fatally wounded v who he mistakenly believed was a terrorist, d had a history of drug abuse and mental illness, was under the influence when done
-defence of self-defence withdrawn because of intoxication
-charged with murder

83
Q

A-G Ref (No.2 of 1983)

A

-necessity defences
-self-defence
-d kept petrol bombs for protection after his shop was attacked several times during riots
-pre-emptive strike, a person is entitled to prepare

84
Q

R v Oye

A

-necessity defences
-self-defence
-h arrested after behaving oddly in a cafe, he threw plates at PO and fought them when arrested
-psychological issues aren’t relevant for self-defence, rejected but used insanity instead
-not guilty by reason of insanity

85
Q

R v Martin (Anthony)

A

-necessity defences
-self-defence
-m shot and killed a burglar
-excessive force, m shot v while escaping
-charged with manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility

86
Q

R v Brandford

A

-necessity defences
-duress by threats
-d charged with conspiracy to sell class A drugs, argued her bf had been threatened unless he transported them so she did it to help
-indirect threats, words were vague, lacked immediacy, she could have gone to police

87
Q

R v Cole

A

-necessity defences
-duress by threats
-d robbed a building society to repay a debt after threats to his family
-connection (nexus), he chose to commit the crime
-charged with robbery

88
Q

R v Conway

A

-necessity defences
-duress by threats
-c drove fast because he thought he was being shot at
-duress available if he was acting to avoid a threat
-case quashed

89
Q

R v Graham

A

-necessity defences
-duress by threats
-d lived with his wife and homosexual lover, k. d helped k kill his wife, said it was because he was scared of k
-created the graham test of general suitability
-charged with murder

90
Q

R v Pommell

A

-necessity defences
-duress of circumstances
-d found with a gun in his house, said he took it off a man and was intending to hand it in
-left to the jury
-retrial

91
Q

DPP v Davis

A

-necessity defences
-duress of circumstances
-d drove while intoxicated to escape an attack
-defence available, quashed

92
Q

R v Martin

A

-necessity defences
-duress of circumstances
-m drove while disqualified because his wife threatened to kill herself if he didn’t drop their son to school
-created the martin test
-appealed, given duress of circumstances

93
Q

R v Howe

A

-necessity defences
-duress by threats
-h was party to torturing and killing a man, he later did the same thing on his own, said he had been threatened to do so
-defence refused as one persons life isn’t worth more than anyone else’s
-charged with murder

94
Q

R v Valderrama-Vega

A

-necessity defences
-duress by threats
-v imported cocaine, threatened with the exposure of his homosexuality, death and financial ruin
-all threats can be considered but there MUST be a threat of death

95
Q

R v Hasan

A

-necessity defences
-duress by threats
-h associated with a violent drug dealer and was threatened into carrying out a burglary/robbery
-imminence, threat must be immediate
-association, defence fails for known association

Law AQA Criminal (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions