Cases Flashcards
(Actus Reus - special responsibility) What are the facts in R v Downes?
D was a member of a religious cult
He believed all medicine is sinful
D’s son became sick and D refused to get him medical treatment
Son ended up dying
D was convicted of manslaughter
Parent and child relationship - parent has a positive duty to act
D was criminally liable
(Actus Reus - voluntary assumption of care) What are the facts in R v Stone and Dobinson?
D and wife took in D’s mentally ill and anorexic sister and provided care for her
At some point they stopped caring for her and she became sick and died
They had voluntarily assumed care for her
D and wife were both convicted of gross negligence manslaughter
(Actus Reus - contractual duty) What are the facts in R v Pittwood?
D was employed by a railway company as a rail guard
D had a contractual duty to raise and lower barriers
Forgot to do so, a horse and carriage was struck by a train which killed the driver
D was convicted of manslaughter
(Actus Reus - public office) What are the facts in R v Dytham?
D was a police officer on duty
Watched a man being beaten to death 30 yards away from him outside of a bar
Made no effort to intervene or help the man
Committed misconduct in office
(Actus Reus - creating a dangerous situation) What are the facts in R v Miller?
D was a vagrant
Entered an empty building, found a mattress and fell asleep on it while smoking a cigarette
Woke up to find the mattress on fire, walked out of the room and fell asleep in a different part of the building
Fire severely damaged the building
Charged with arson as he failed to try and put the initial fire out
(Actus Reus - factual causation) What are the facts in R v White?
D attempted to poison his mother using cyanide
Mother died, D was charged with murder
Mother died of unrelated heart issue, never consumed the poison
But for test not satisfied, D was not convicted
(Actus Reus - intervening acts) What are the facts in R v Blaue?
V was stabbed in the lung by D
V needed a blood transfusion
V refused the transfusion on religious grounds and later died
D argued this broke the chain of causation
This was rejected, D was convicted of manslaughter
(Mens Rea - oblique intention) What are the facts in R v Woolin?
D threw his baby against a hard surface, causing the child’s death
Claimed he did not intend to kill - only wished to stop the baby from crying
Convicted of murder
HOL reversed the decision - D could only be convicted of murder if he was ‘virtually certain’ that it would cause death
D didn’t see death as a ‘virtual certainty’ of his actions
(Mens Rea - recklessness) What are the facts in R v Cunningham?
D tore gas meter off of the wall in the cellar of an unoccupied house to steal the money in it
Gas leaked out through cracks in the walls
The gas entered the next door property
D’s mother in law was asleep in the neighbouring property and inhaled the gas, poisoning her
D was charged with maliciously administering a noxious thing so to endanger life
Judge held that the MR was to be ‘wicked’
D was convicted and appealed
CoA quashed the conviction, MR was intention or recklessness
D didn’t intend to poison his mother in law so recklessly did so
(Mens Rea) What are the facts in R v Brady?
D became drunk in a nightclub and climbed onto a railing on the upper floor
D lost balance and fell, crushing another person and causing serious injury
D was charged with an offence against the person
The MR was intention or recklessness to cause harm
Convicted and appealed
CoA upheld conviction - D foresaw climbing on the rail posed risks to others but did so anyway
Reasonable and honest person would have considered this an unreasonable risk
(Mens Rea - continuing act theory) What are the facts in R v Fagan?
D accidentally parked his car on the foot of a police officer
Officer demanded that he move the car, D refused
D was charged with battery
D argued that the MR wasn’t present when the AR happened
When he had MR, AR had already been done
Court rejected - entire chain of events should be one continuing act
As long as AR and MR occur somewhere in the continuing act, principle of coincidence will be satisfied
(Mens Rea - single transaction theory) What are the facts in R v Thabo Meli?
4 appellants were convicted of murder
Hit victim over the head, thought he was dead, threw his body off of a cliff
Later shown the victim died of starvation and exposure at the bottom of the cliff, not from the hit to the head
Argued AR and MR didn’t coincide
When they intended to kill him, he didn’t die so there was no AR
When he died, there was no MR as they believed he was already dead
CoA rejected - both AR and MR were present the entire time
Whole plan was a series of linked acts - ‘single transaction’ - no way of separating the acts
(Mens Rea - doctrine of transferred malice) What are the facts in R v Latimer?
D attempted to hit a man with a belt but hit a woman standing nearby instead
D was convicted of committing an offence against the person
MR was transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim
(Mens Rea - absolute liability) What are the facts in Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent?
D was taken to hospital, discharged for being drunk
Police forcibly removed D
D was taken to a street outside the hospital by the police
Police then arrested him for ‘being found drunk on the highway’
Convicted, no MR needed
(Murder and voluntary manslaughter) What are the facts in R v Ahluwalia?
Appellant suffered abuse from her husband over many years
Went to bed one evening, couldn’t sleep, got up, poured petrol on her husband and set it alight
The husband died as a result of his injuries
Argued that she could use the (old) defence of provocation
Court rejected this and convicted her of murder
