Cases

Question 1

What is the HILL v BAXTER case?

Answer 1

Where the driver of a car suffered a heart attack and crashed. The judge said he was not guilty due to not acting voluntarily and gave these examples, which were the driver being stung by a swarm of bees or being struck on the head by a stone.

Question 2

What was the legal point of the HILL v BAXTER case?

Answer 2

The Actus Reus must be done voluntary if the defendant is to be found guilty.

Question 4

What was the legal point of the LARSONNEUR case?

Answer 4

She had been found in the UK without permission of being there, even though it was not done voluntarily, it still formed the Actus Reus

Question 5

What was the LARSONNEUR case?

Answer 5

A french citizen who came to the UK and was ordered to leave. Because of this she decided to move to Eire in Ireland, where upon her arrival she was deported back to the UK. When she arrived to the UK she was arrested for being an illegal ‘alien’ because she had been refused permission to arrive in the UK.

Question 6

What is the Pittwood case?

Answer 6

Pittwood was employed as a gate keeper at a railway crossing. One day he went for lunch leaving the gate open. A cart crossing the railway line got hit by a train. One man on the cart was killed. Pittwood was convicted of manslaughter.

Question 7

What is the legal point of the Pittwood case?

Answer 7

Was convicted for manslaughter based on his failure (omission) to close the gate when a train approached. The duty to close the gate was a point of his contract of employment.

Question 8

What is the Gibbons and Proctor case?

Answer 8

Gibbons and Proctor had a daughter from one of the partners’ previous marriage. They purposely kept her under lock and key in a room, isolating her and refusing to feed her. The girl starved to death. They were convicted of murder.

Question 9

What is the legal point to the Gibbons and Proctor case?

Answer 9

They were liable for murder due to the fact that they both failed to undertake the responsibility they both had for their daughter (relationship).The failure to feed the child deliberately led to amounted to the Actus Reus.

Question 10

What is the Stone and Dobinson case?

Answer 10

The defendants lived together. Stone’s sister came to live with them and she was anorexic. S and D made some effort to care for the sick woman, but did not call the emergency services. She eventually died.

Question 11

What is the legal point to the Stone and Dobinson case?

Answer 11

Stone and Dobinson were convicted of murder as they had taken on a duty of care by allowing the sister to live in their home, and then omitted to make other arrangements for her (voluntarily), whilst knowing she relied on them.

Question 12

What is the Dytham case?

Answer 12

A uniformed police officer saw a man who was being kicked to death. He took no steps to stop the attack and drove away when it was over.

Question 13

What is the legal point to the Dytham case?

Answer 13

He was convicted of the offence of misconduct in a public office as he omitted to protect the victim.

Question 14

What was the Miller case?

Answer 14

Miller had been squatting in a house had fell asleep whilst smoking a cigarette. He was awoken by the flames but instead went into another room. The whole house was damaged by fire.

Question 15

What is the legal point to the miller case?

Answer 15

He was convicted of criminal damage as he had set in motion a chain of events by leaving the room without any attempt to extinguish the flames.

Question 16

What is the R v Harris and Harris case?

Answer 16

Where the parents of a girl refused the doctors to treat her diabetes with insulin.

Question 17

What is the legal point to the R v Harris and Harris case?

Answer 17

The parents were guilty of manslaughter due to the fact that their duty arose from their relationship with their daughter and that parents have a duty to care for their children.

Question 18

What is the case of Pagett?

Answer 18

The defendant used his girlfriend, Gail, as a human shield whilst he shit at armed police. The police fired back and unfortunately killed gail

Question 19

What is the legal point for the case of pagett

Answer 19

Pagett was convicted of Gails manslaughter as she would not have died ‘but for’ his use if her as a human shield.

Question 20

What is the case of white

Answer 20

White put poison in his mothers drink intending to kill her. She died shortly after as a result of a heart attack. The poison had not taken affect at the time.

Question 21

What is the legal point for the case of white?

Answer 21

Whilst he intended to kill his mother and she died, he had not caused her death and could not be guilty of murder. There was no factual cause of death

Question 22

What is the case of Kimsey

Answer 22

Two drivers were racing each other and one of them crashed and died. The question was, ‘was the defendant liable for manslaughter?’

Question 23

What is the legal point for Kimsey

Answer 23

The court held that the defendant’s act does not have to be the substantial cause, but does need to be more than a slight or trifling link.

Question 24

What is the case of R v Smith

Answer 24

Two soldiers were involved in a fight. The victim received a stab wound to that pierced his lung. The victim was taken to the medical station where he later died. The defendant objected being liable for murder because the victim had been dropped, the medical officer didn’t realise the seriousness of his injury as he was dealing with do many others. Overall the defendant claimed that treatment was thoroughly bad

Question 25

What is the legal point for the case of R v Smith

Answer 25

The court held that the defendants stabbing was the operating and substantial cause of the victims death, as the victim died due to blood loss of the stab wound.

Question 26

What is the case of R v Cheshire

Answer 26

The victim was shot in the thigh and stomach, the victim died as a result of rare complications from a tracheotomy which had not been spotted by the doctors. Even though the original wounds were no longer life threatening, the tracheotomy given to help breathing problems and the rare complication were not seen as independent of the gunshot wounds

Question 27

What is the legal point to R v Cheshire

Answer 27

As the defendant was the main reason for the need of a tracheotomy the chain of causation was not broken

Question 28

R v Jordan

Answer 28

The defendant stabbed the victim, who was taken to hospital. A week later, when the wound was almost healed, doctors gave him an incorrect injection, knowing it was an incorrect injection due to the victims medical records, which resulted to his death

Question 29

What is the legal point to R v Jordan

Answer 29

As the medical treatment was so palpably wrong, there was no legal causation and the defendant was acquitted. The original injury was not the operating and substantial cause of death, but the defendant was still guilty of wounding

Question 30

What is the case of R v Malcherek

Answer 30

The defendant stabbed his wife. She seemed to be starting to recover, but then suffered a setback which caused her to have open heart surgery. She sustained brain damage which resulted her to be on a life support machine and declared brain dead. Doctors decided to switch the machine off

Question 31

What is the legal point to R v Malcherek

Answer 31

The court decided that switching off the machine did not break the chain of causation as the death was caused by the original stab wounds

Question 32

What is the case of R v Roberts

Answer 32

21 year old woman passenger in a car and Roberts made sexual advances towards her which made her believe he was going to rape her. She opened and jumped out of the car door whilst the car was still moving. She suffered cuts, bruises and concussion

Question 33

What is the legal point to R v Roberts

Answer 33

The court dismissed Robert’s appeal on the grounds that the victims actions were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of what Roberts was doing and therefore the chain of causation had not been broken.

Question 34

R v Williams

Answer 34

Williams gave a lift to a hitchhiker and allegedly tried to take his wallet. The hitchhiker jumped out whilst the car was still moving and died from head injuries he sustained. Williams appealed by saying that the hitchhikers own actions caused his death.

Question 35

Legal point for R v Williams

Answer 35

Williams appeal allowed his conviction to be overturned. This is because it was held that the hitchhiker did something so unexpected that no reasonable man could expect to foresee it.

Question 36

What is the case of R v Blaue

Answer 36

Blaue stabbed a victim who happened to be a Jehovah’s Witness. She was taken to hospital, where she was told that she needed a blood transfusion, which she refused due to her religion. She died shortly after, blaue was convicted of murder.
Blaue appealed and argued that her refusal of a blood transfusion broke the chain of causation and she would not have died if she had received it

Question 37

What is the legal point to R v Blaue

Answer 37

The court held that Blaue had to take his victim as he found her which included her religion. The stab wounds caused her death and therefore Blaue was liable.

Question 38

What is the case of Mohan

Answer 38

Where it was said that direct intention is a decision to bring about, so far as it relies on the defendants powers, the criminal consequence of his act or not. It can be said to be the defendants aim, purpose or desire.

Question 39

What is the case of Woollin

Answer 39

The defendant was feeding his 3 month old baby boy when he suddenly chokes on his food. The defendant lost his temper and threw his baby towards the pram. The baby hit the wall and dies from the head injuries sustained.

Question 40

What is the case of Cunningham

Answer 40

The defendant broke into a pre-pay gas meter to steal the money which caused the gas to leak into the neighbouring house which caused the neighbour to become ill. He was charged for administering a noxious substance to the victim

Question 41

What is the legal point to the case of Cunningham

Answer 41

The court decided that the mens rea of the offence could be intention or recklessness. Cunningham was found not guilty as it could not be shown that he knew there was a risk of harming anyone

Question 42

What is the case of Mitchel?

Answer 42

The defendant got involved in an argument in a post office (on pension day) and he then pushed an old man who then accidentally fell into an old lady who fell over and died from her injuries

Question 43

What is the legal point for the case of Mitchel?

Answer 43

Even though there was no direct contact between the defendant an the victim, she was injured by the indirect act and the mens rea was transferred to the victim

Question 44

What is the case of Latimer

Answer 44

The defendant aimed to hit someone with his belt, but as he pulled back his belt, he hit an innocent bystander.

Question 45

What is the legal point for the case of Latimer?

Answer 45

The mens rea was transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim because the offence was of the same type.

Question 46

What is the case of Pemblinton?

Answer 46

The defendant picked up a stone and threw it at a group of men he had been fighting l. He missed and hit the window of the pub, breaking it. He was charged with an old form of criminal damage. He was convicted at trial

Question 47

What is the legal point of Pemblinton?

Answer 47

His conviction was quashed on appeal because he had not got the mens rea for the criminal damage. He did have the mens rea for a different offence but this could not be transferred as it was person to property