Cases Flashcards
Hogg v McPherson 1928
No Voluntary Act
- Driver of horse and carriage was accused of knocking over a lamp
- It turned out the wind had caused the carriage to be knocked over and resulted in damage to the lampost
HELD - Driver not liable as there must be a voluntary act before there is liability
R v White 1910
No Causal Link
- Defendant put poison cyanide in to his mother’s drink with the intention to kill her
- The victim died of a heart attack before the posion could take effect.
HELD - not guilty of murder as he had not caused the death.
HM Advocate v Kerr &; Others 1871
No liability for omissions
- Mr Donald did not take part in a rape but was subsequently charged for ‘not acting’
- The question put before the court was whether he had a duty to stop the rape
HELD - It was morally wrong but Donald was under no legal obligation to act.
Illustrates that you are only liable for what you do, not what others do.
Quinn v Lees 1994
A Joke: Motive
- Accused was charged with assault after setting his dog on three children
- Accused gave evidence that he called the dog to attak as ‘a joke’
HELD - sufficient evidence that he intended the dog to attack.
Even if it was a joke that was merely the motive and did not affect the mens rea.
Paton v HM Advocate 1936
Recklessness
- Gross indifference to the consequences of his actions
Thabo Meli v R (1954)
Conduct treated as a continuous act
- Four men beat a victim over the head
- Of the belief that they had killed the victim they proceeded to throw him from a cliff
- Medical evidence proved that the victim had not died from the beating, but from exposure after being thrown from the cliff.
- They appealed their convictions on the grounds that the Actus Reus and Mens Rea did not coincide
- The argument being that although they fulfilled the actus reus, they did not fulfil the mens rea at the time the threw the victim from the cliff
HELD - Convictions were upheld on the grounds that the act of beating the victim and then throwing him from a cliff was a continuing act.
Roberts v Hamilton 1989
Transferred Intent
- Accused aimed a blow at soemone and ended up hitting her own boyfriend
- There was no intention to hit him
HELD - There was the intention to injure someone which meant that intention transferred, guilty of assault.
HM Advocate v Robertson & Donoghue (1945)
(causation)Take the victim as you find them
- Two accused struggked with an eldery shop owner
- The victim suffered a heart attack and died
- It was discovered that the victim had a weak heart and the attack contributed to his heart failure.
HELD - Although one cannot be expected to know of a persons physical condition you are assumed to know as per the think skull rule.
McDonald v HM Advocate 2007
(causation)Victim’s contribution
- Victim seriously assaulted and locked in third floor flat
- Victim proceeded to try and escape by climbing oit of the window, part of which broke when he stood on it
The victim fell and later died as a result of the fall
- The two men who committed the origainl assault were convicted of culpable homicide
HELD - that the unlawful imprisonment and assault were a direct cause of the victim’s death.
HM Advocate v Fraser & Rollins 1920
Each liable for the ultimate actus reus
- A woman would lure victims into park so her two associates could rob them
- On this occasion the victim is killed
- it is forseeable that robbery may lead to death
HELD - all parties liable under ‘art and part liability’ are responsible where there is prior agreement.
Gallacher v HM Advocate 1951
(art and part)Spontaneous coming together
- A circus came to Hamilton
- There was a feud between the people of Hamilton and the circus people
- One Hamilton individual proceeded to attack a person whom he believed was part of the circus
- Many people witnessed and decided to join in the attack
- The victim died
HELD - Although there was no prior plan between individuals there was a spontaneous coming together for criminal purpose and thus art and part liable for murder.
Boyne v HM Advocate
(art and part)Step outside the common plan
- Several individuals were involved in a robbery
- A victim died as a result of being stabbed by one of the accused
- If others knew he possessed the knife before the robbery they would have been liable for murder
HELD - lack of knowledge as to the knife meant only the assailant who possessed the knife was charged with murder as he strayed outside the common plan.
HM Advocate v Camerons (1911)
(Attempt) preparation to perpetration
- A husband and wife claim they have been robbed
- They notified both the police and their insurance company
- They had not actually filled out the claim form for the insurance provider
- Therefore, they the did not satisfy ‘the last act’ test nor did they satisfy the ‘beyond recall’ test as they could still repent
HELD - became a question of degree for the jury and they were both convicted
Docherty v Brown 1996
Impossible Attempts
- Accused was charged with attempting to possess a controlled substance with the intent to supply
- It emerged that the ‘drugs’ purchased by the accused were not drugs at all
HELD - he was convicted of attempting to commit a crime as he still possessed the necessary mens rea.
West v HM Advocate 1997
(Conspiracy) Loitering suspiciously with weapons
- Two accused sat outside a bank with blade and an open razor
- They were charged with conspiracy to assault and rob
HELD - although there was no actual ‘attempt’ two people had acted together in perpetration of a crime which has not yet been attempted
Baxter v HM Advocate 1997
(Incitement) It is enough that the accused is serious
- A dispute arose between tenants of plan for property
- One inhabitant was preventing the refurbishments from taking place
- A tenant discussed with an employee how much it would cost to have the tenant killed
- The tenant was killed despite there being no explicit instructions to have him killed
HELD - Incitement could be charged where the accused was serious in inviting another to commit a crime
Drury v HM Advocate 2001
“wicked intent”
- Drury murdered his ex-wife with a claw hammer upon discovering she had slept with another man
- The case brought about a new definition for murder which was a controversial one
- Lord Roger stated that there must be ‘wicked intent’ to kill or ‘wicked recklessness’
- The case accepted that there was provocation in the form of sexual infedelity
- The judge directed the jury that for the defence of provocation to be successful they had to determine (1) did he snap and (2) would the ordinary man have responded in the same way when discovering sexual infedelity
HM Advocate v Purcell 2008
“wicked recklessnes”
- Young child was killed by Purcell who was driving extremely dangerously
- The crown sought a charge of murder
- It was the view of the court that there must have been some from of intention to kill to charge murder
- The crown argued that the “callous disregard for public safety” should amount to murder
HELD - Purcell’s actions were not so intended and he was charged with the lesser crime of culpable homicide.
