Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Criminal Law and Evidence > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

MacAngus and Kane v HMA

A

If A supplied B with drugs B’s actions will not necessarily break the causal chain

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

James Williamson

A

Poor medical treatment generally will not be enough to break the causal chain unless it can be shown B would have survived with better treatment

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

Drury v HMA

A

‘Wicked’ intent = mens rea for murder

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

Gillon v HMA

A

Homicide: any intent to kill is wicked unless a recognised defence is available

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

HMA v Purcell

A

Homicide; wicked recklessness; intent to injury is specifically required

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

Petto v HMA

A

Homicide; wicked recklessness; intent to injure; under certain circumstances doing something extremely reckless can amount to intent to injure

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

Lourie v HMA

A

Culpable homicide; unlawful act; causal link as crucial between A’s action and B’s death

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

Paton v HMA

A

Culpable homicide: recklessness - necessary to show gross, or wicked, or criminal negligence

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

Transco v HMA

A

Culpable homicide: lawful act; mens rea; establish necessary degree of recklessness - a complete indifference to the consequences

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

Smart v HMA

A

Assault: AR; every attack upon the person of another whether or not it injures; MR - evil intention

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

Lord Advocate’s Reference No 2

A

Assault; Mens rea; evil intention should really just be interpreted as meaning intention

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

Macdonald v HMA

A

Assault; intention to cause pain might be distinguished from intention to injure

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

R v Brown

A

Assault; if someone desired injury consent probably still remains invalid

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

HMA v Harris

A

AR: causing injury to another. Despite fact that as bouncer he could have a defence of reasonable restraint

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

W v HMA

A

Reckless injury; mens rea = recklessness - an utter disregard for the consequences of ones actions

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

Normand v Robinson

A

Reckless endangerment; AR - endangerment MR - recklessness

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

Donaldson v Normand

A

Reckless endangerment; crime as being used to charge individuals who have denied having sharp objects in their possession before a police search, putting searcher in danger

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

Mallin v Clark

A

Reckless endangerment; lack of disclosure of carrying a weapon is a crime

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

Cameron v Maguire

A

Reckless discharge of firearms; MR utter disregard for the consequences

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

Khaliq v HMA

A

Supplying a harmful substance to a person knowing they intend to use it may be a criminal offence

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

Mutebi v HMA

A

Consent absent where complainer incapable because of alcohol BUT here didn’t fall within scope as she wasn’t sure

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

DC v DG & DR

A

Contrast to Mutebi - unable to consent due to alcohol and backed up with eyewitnesses saying she was extremely drunk

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

Drummond v HMA

A

No consent where B agrees to conduct because unlawfully detained by A

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

Webster v Dominick

A

Offence of Public Indecency - different kinds of exposure/sexual conduct can fall within the scope

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Black v Carmichael
Theft - requires appropriation (control and possession taken) which is inconsistent with the rights of the owner
26
Grant v Allan
Theft - only corporeal moveable property can be stolen - once information is in the public domain it can't be stolen
27
Dewar v HMA
Theft - where something given for a specific purpose, theft if used outwith the realm of this consent
28
Kane v Friel
Theft; MR - intention to deprive (even if intending to give it back)
29
HMA v Forbes
Housebreaking with intent to steal
30
Burns v Allan
Housebreaking; don't actually need to break anything and place doesn't necessarily have to be locked
31
HMA v Laing
Embezzlement; AR - taking property you've been entrusted with
32
McCraw v PF Aberdeen
Embezzlement; MR - dishonesty
33
Cromar v HMA
Robbery; AR theft MR violence (need only be slight)
34
Black v Carmichael
Extortion - threat to another person - cannot take the law into your own hands
35
Adcock v Archibald
Fraud 3 elements: false pretence/definite practical result/causal link. Here miner caused owners do do something they wouldn't otherwise have done
36
Mackenzie v Skeen
Fraud; MR - intent to get a person to do something different than they otherwise would have done
37
Latta v Heron
Reset; knowingly receiving stolen property MR knowledge or wilful blindness. Here antique guns in dark alleyway
38
HMA v Wilson
Malicious Mischief; interfering with property in a way that causes economic loss
39
Lord Advocate's Ref No 1
Malicious Mischief; mens rea - intent or reckless; no malice is required
40
Byrne v HMA
Fire-raising; AR fire MR = wilfulness or recklessness. here recklessness as letting fire spread
41
Smith v Donnelly
Breach of the Peace - conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community
42
Montgomerie v PF Kilmarnock
Breach of the Peace; actual harm is not required - existence of alarm does not mean that an offence has been committed. OBJECTIVE TEST
43
Paterson v Harvie
Stalking/threatening/abusive behaviour; objective test that behaviour must be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear/alarm
44
Ralston v HMA
Corroboration; 1 positive ID backed up with another statement that the accused resembled the perpetrator was enough.
45
Laing v HMA
Corroboration; ID can be circumstantial; eyewitness corroboration was poor; DNA evidence
46
Manuel v HMA
Special Knowledge Confessions; certain types of confessions demonstrating 'special knowledge' may be corroborated by this being true
47
Smith v Lees
Distress as corroboration; can only corroborate a lack of consent though not acts
48
Moorov v HMA
Two or more charges can mutually corroborate eachother if closely connected
49
MR v HMA
Moorov Doctrine; requirements laid out here for Moorov doctrine - similarities in TIME PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCE
50
Howden v HMA
Howden Doctrine; establish a course of conduct; when there is no evidence identifying the accused as having committed 1 crime - if that crime is sufficiently similar to another which he's been proved of committing - may be convicted of both
51
HMA v Turnbull
Search warrants; the search must be within the scope of the warrant (Files)
52
HMA v Hepper
Search warrant; accidentally stumbling across incriminating evidence is permitted. Allowed as police acted in good faith
53
Drummond v HMA
Search warrant; deliberate fishing expeditions are not permitted.
54
McGuigan v HMA
Urgent Searches; may be invoked where reason to believe delay might cause danger to life/property or evidence that it might be destroyed if search not executed properly
55
Lawrie v Muir
Evidence unlawfully obtained; balancing test between interest of the citizen and interest of the state (Seriousness of the crime/irregularity/good faith/circumstances of urgency)
56
Brown v HMA
Improperly obtained confessions; a confession will be inadmissible where unfairly obtained
57
Cadder v HMA
Improperly obtained confessions; access to legal advice; if a suspect has not been offered access then any confession will be INADMISSIBLE
58
Lord Advocate's Ref No 1
Confessions - improper forms of pressure designed to break the will of the suspect/force a confession will not be admissible
59
Harley v HMA
Confessions; inducement; where an inappropriate threat has been made evidence will be inadmissible
60
Steward v Hingston
Confessions; inducement; admissible where acting in good faith - stating a fact with no pressure
61
HMA v Higgins
Confessions; deliberate eavesdropping; statements heard by police in custody = admissible unless manufactured
62
Fraser v HMA
Character evidence; similar fact evidence; generally will not be admissible
63
M v HMA
Sexual history evidence; events must be linked in time/place/circumstance
64
HMA v CJW
Character Evidence; probative value vs risk of prejudice
65
Fraser v HMA
Opinion Evidence; generally a witness must testify to a fact NOT their opinion
66
Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP
Opinion Evidence; Expert Evidence test (1) whether evidence will assist court (2) whether expert witness has necessary knowledge and experience (3) whether witness is impartial (4) whether there is a reliable body of knowledge/experience to undpering the expert's evidence
67
Hendry v HMA
Opinion Evidence; Expert; the expert must not usurp the function of the court. Expert cannot express their own opinion on the verdict
68
Hainley v HMA
Opinion evidence - whether expert witness has necessary knowledge and experience
69
Young v HMA
Opinion Evidence; whether there is a reliable body of knowledge/experience to underpin the expert's evidence
70
Morrison v HMA
Heresay evidence; any assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible
71
HMA v Doherty
Self Defence; 3 requirements; immediate danger - no reasonable opportunity to escape - force used must be proportionate
72
Drury v HMA (defence)
Provocation; 3 requirements; recognised provocation (violence/infidelity); immediate loss of self-control; ordinary person/proportionality
73
Moss v Howdle
Necessity; 3 conditions; immediate danger of death/harm - no reasonable alternative course of action - reasonable prospect of removing the danger (Lord Advocate's Ref No 1)
74
Thomson v HMA
Coercion; immediate threat of death/great bodily harm - ordinary person - accused must not have risked being subject to coercion
75
Ross v HMA
Automatism; 3 requirements; total alienation of reason - caused by an external factor - which the accused was not bound to forsee - involuntary intoxication as a defence
76
Brennan v HMA
Diminished responsibility; partial defence which would not be satisfied by voluntary intoxication
77
William Hardie
Actus reus; crime by omission;
78
Lord Advocate's Ref No 2
Mens rea as intent/wicked intent
79
Cameron v McGuire
Recklessness = utter disregard for the consequences of an action
80
Mullan v Anderson
Civil cases are always determined on the balance of probabilities even if a crime is alleged
81
Fox v HMA
Evidence need not be directly incriminatory to be corroborative - can support stronger evidence
82
HMA v Kerr
Omissions - no general duty to intervene when crime is being committed
83
Patterson v Lees
Omissions - can't be liable for an offence on the basis of an omission alone
84
Bone v HMA
Crime liability for omission where duty to act - discharged the duty
85
R v Instan
Crime liability for omission - where duty to act voluntarily assumed
86
McCue v Currie
Crime of omission following a prior dangerous act; where creation of dangerous situation gave rise to a duty to act
87
HMA v Lappen
Art and Part Liability; participation and common purpose which will be inferred from the facts
88
McKinnon v HMA
Art and Part Liability; guilty if actively associated with common criminal purpose; objective test - show aware of the risk
89
MacNeil v HMA
Art and Part Liability - defence of disassociation - a person who quits an enterprise cannot be held to act in concert with those who go on to commit the crime
90
Bird v HMA
Causation - thin skull rule - take your victim as you find them
91
R v Blaue
Causation - novus actus interveniens - psychological character decisions don't always break the chain of causation
92
Khaliq v HMA
Voluntary acts by the victim don't break the chain of causation unless unforseeable/unexpected

Criminal Law and Evidence (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions