Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Case 1 : Hogg v. MacPherson 1928
A
- Hogg was a van-man in charge of a large horse-drawn furniture van.
- He was travelling along the road when a guest of wind capsized the van causing it to hit and damage a lamp-post.
- No action of the appellant could have avoided the disaster.
- No voluntary act.
2
Q
Case 2 : R. v. White 1910
A
- Defendant our poison in mothers milk intending to kill her.
- Mother took a few sips and went to sleep, never waking up.
- Reports revealed age died from a heart attack, not the poison.
- Defendant not liable for her death as his act wasn’t the cause of death.
- He was liable for attempt.
- No casual link.
3
Q
Case 3 : H.M. Advocate v. Kerr & and others 1871
A
- The accused failed to report a gang rape he has witnessed but not taken part in.
- Held that generally there is no liability for omissions unless it’s an exception.
4
Q
Case 4 : Quinn v. Lees 1994
A
- Accused was charged with assault after setting his dog in three children.
- Claimed he called the dog as a joke.
- Held that there was sufficient evidence that he intended the dog to attack.
- Even if it was a joke that was merely a motive and did not affect the men’s rea.
5
Q
Case 5 : Paton v. H.M. Advocate 1936
A
- Man driving at a high speed hit and killed a pedestrian.
- Although he never intended to kill anyone, his actions were reckless due to his indifference to the consequences of his actions.
6
Q
Case 6 : Thabo Meli v. R 1954
A
- Four men beat victim over the head.
- Thinking they had killed the victim, they threw him from a cliff.
- Reports proved victim did not die from the beating, but from exposure after being throw off the cliff.
- Appealed convictions on grounds that the actual reus and men’s rea did no coincide.
- Argues that although they fulfilled actus reus, did not fulfil the men’s rea at the time they threw the victim from the cliff.
- Convictions upheld on grounds that the act of beating the victim and throwing him from a cliff was a continuing act.
- Conduct treated as a continuous act.
7
Q
Case 7 : Roberts v. Hamilton 1989
A
- Accused aimed a blow at someone.
- Ended up hiring her own boyfriend.
- No intention to hit her boyfriend.
- Held that there was the intention to injure someone which meant that the intention transferred.
- Guilty of assault.
- Transferred intent.
8
Q
Case 8 : H.M. Advocate v. Robertson and Donoghue 1945
A
- Two accuses struggled with an elderly shop owner.
- Victim suffered a heart attack and died.
- Discovered that victim had a weak heart.
- The attack contributed to his heart failure.
- Held that although one can not be expected to know of a persons physical conditions you are assumed to as per the thin skull rule.
- Take victim as you find him/her principle.
9
Q
Case 9 : McDonald v. H.M. Advocate 2007
A
- Victim seriously assaulted and locked in third floor flat.
- Victim tried to escape by climbing out window, part of which broke when he stood on it.
- Victim fell and later died as a result of the fall.
- Two men who committed the assault convicted for culpable homicide.
- Held that the unlawful imprisonment and assault were a direct cause of the death.
- Victims contribution.
10
Q
Case 10 : H.M. Advocate v. Fraser and Rollins 1920
A
- Women would lure victims into parks
- Her two associates would rob them.
- On this occasion the victim is killed.
- It’s foreseeable that robbery may lead to death.
- Held that all parties liable under art and part liability are responsible where there is prior agreement.
- Each liable for the ultimate actus reus.
11
Q
Case 11 : H.M Advocate v. Gallacher 1951
A
- Circus came to Hamilton.
- Fued arose between the people of Hamilton and the circus people.
- One Hamilton individual proceeded to attach a person he believes to be part of the circus.
- Witnesses decided to join in the attack.
- Victim died.
- Held that although there was no prior plan between individuals, there was a spontaneous coming together for criminal purpose.
- Art and part liability for murder applied.
12
Q
Case 12 : Bayne v. H.M. Advocate 1980
A
- Several individuals involved in a robbery.
- Victim died as result of being stabbed by one of the accused.
- If others knew he possessed a knife before the robbery they would be liable for murder.
- Held that lack of knowledge of the knife meant only the assailant who possessed the knife was charged with murder as he strayed outside the common plan.
13
Q
Case 13 : H.M. Advocate v. Camerons 1911
A
- Husband and wide claim they have been robbed.
- Notified both the police and their insurance company.
- They had not actually filled out the claim form for the insurance company.
- Therefore they did not satisfy ‘the last act’ test not the ‘beyond recall’ test as they could still repent.
- Held that it became a question of degree for the jury and they were both convicted.
- Preparation to perpetrate.
14
Q
Case 14 : Docherty v. Brown 1996
A
- Accused charged with attempting to possess a controlled substance with intent to supply.
- It emerged that the ‘drugs’ purchased by the accused were not drugs at all.
- Convicted of attempting to commit a crime as he still possessed the necessary men’s rea.
- Impossible attempts.
15
Q
Case 15 : West v. H.M. Advocate 1985
A
- Two accused sat outside a bank with a blade and open razor.
- They were charged with conspiracy to assault and rob.
- Held that although there was no actual ‘attempt’ two people had acted together in preparation of a crime which has not yet been attempted.
- Loitering suspiciously with weapons.
16
Q
Case 16 : Baxter v. H.M. Advocate 1997
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.
- Tenant was killed despite there being no explicit instructions to have him killed.
- Held that incitement could be charged where the accused was serious in inviting another to commit a crime.
- It is enough that the accused is serious.
17
Q
Case 17 : Drury v. H.M. Advocate 2001
A
- Drury murdered his ex-wife with a claw hammer upon discovering she had slept with another man.
- Case brought about new definition of murder.
- Lord Roger stated there must be ‘wicked intent’ to kill or ‘wicked recklessness’.
- Case accepted provocation in the form of sexual infidelity.
- For defence of provocation they had to determine
1) did he snap and 2) would the ordinary man have responded in the same way when discovering sexual infidelity. - Wicked intent.
18
Q
Case 18 : H.M. Advocate v. Purcell 2008
A
- Young child killed by Purcell who was driving extremely dangerously.
- Must have been some sort of intention to kill to charge murder.
- Held that Purcells actions were not intended and he was charged with the lesser crime of culpable homicide.
- Wicked recklessness.
19
Q
Case 19 : Petto v. H.M. Advocate 2012
A
- Petto set fire to a tenement which caused an explosion killing a person in another flat.
- He pleas guilty for murder.
- Tried to withdraw his plea and have it reduced to culpable homicide.
- Five bench decision found him guilty of murder.
- Held that deliberately setting fire to first floor flat meant it was inevitable someone would be injured even if this consequence is not desired, if you know it may happen then you intent it to happen.
20
Q
Case 20 : Tomney v. H.M. Advocate 2012
A
- Appellants appeal against conviction for culpable homicide by culpably and recklessly discharging a handgun causing a persons death was refused where the evidence was consistent with either reckless or grossly negligent conduct in the appellants part and provided consistent and powerful body of material from which the jury were entitled to draw the inference that they had.
- Lawful act, involuntary culpable homicide.
