cases - introduction to criminal law and the elements of a crime

Question 1

Shaw v DPP (1962)

Answer 1

conspiracy to corrupt public morals, defendant published a book of names, pictures and services offered by the prostitutes, defendant was convicted

Question 2

R v R (1991)

Answer 2

marital rape, husbands could be found guilty of rape if the wife did not consent

Question 3

Woolmington v DPP (1935)

Answer 3

beyond reasonable doubt

Question 4

R v Hookway (2011)

Answer 4

cannot hold a suspect at the station for more than 96 hours and can only rearrest with new evidence

Question 5

Jonathan Vass

Answer 5

raped his girlfriend, got bail, killed his girlfriend to stop her giving evidence, pleaded guilty

Question 6

Gary Weddell

Answer 6

murdered his wife and made it look like suicide, got bail, killed his mother in law then took his own life

Question 7

Karen Matthews

Answer 7

kidnapped her own daughter to get the reward money, denied bail and was found guilty

Question 8

Hill v Baxter (1958)

Answer 8

involuntary acts, stung by a swarm of bees

Question 9

Larsonneur (1933)

Answer 9

absolute liability offence, french national was deported from Ireland against her will to the UK, found guilty of being in the UK illegally

Question 10

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)

Answer 10

absolute liability, was taken out of a hospital onto the street by the police for being drunk and the was convicted for being “drunk on the highway”

Question 11

Pittwood (1902)

Answer 11

contractual duty to act, a railway employee with a responsibility to open and shut the gates, he went on a break and failed to shut them, a haycart driver was killed and he was found liable

Question 12

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Answer 12

duty arising from a special relationship, Proctor was Gibbins partner, Nelly his daughter. the father had a duty of care for the daughter but she starved to death but Proctor did too as she was living in the same household, both convicted of murder

Question 13

R v Khan (1988)

Answer 13

duty arising from a special relationship, drug dealer found not to have a duty of care to his clients and a manslaughter conviction was quashed

Question 14

Stone and Dobinson (1977)

Answer 14

duty assumed for another, both defendants agreed to look after Fanny, she was anorexic and eventually died, the defendants were found guilt of manslaughter as they could have gotten her more care and didn’t

Question 15

R v Miller (1983)

Answer 15

creation of a dangerous situation, squatter fell asleep smoking and woke to found his mattress on fire but instead of putting it out just moved, the fire caused a lot of damage so he was found guilty of arson

Question 16

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)

Answer 16

an omission, Bland was crushed in the Hillsborough disaster and was on a life support machine with severe brain damage and in a persistent vegetative state, the doctors applied to the courts to stop feeding him which would lead to his death, the courts granted their permission

Question 17

R v White (1910)

Answer 17

the but for test, White poisoned his mother but she died of a heart attack before the poison killed her, he was not liable for her death

Question 18

R v Pagett (1983)

Answer 18

the but for test, used his girlfriend as a human shield, he shot at the police and they shot back, but for him using her as a human shield she would not have died when she did

Question 19

R v Kimsey (1996)

Answer 19

de minimis rule, must be “more than slight or a trifling link”

Question 20

R v Smith (1959)

Answer 20

the original act was an operative and substantial cause of the consequence, soldier was stabbed but dropped twice on his way to the hospital, experienced a delay in seeing the doctor and was given poor medical care but these factors do not break the chain of causation

Question 21

R v Cheshire (1991)

Answer 21

the original act was an operative and substantial cause of the consequence, the victim was shot in the leg and received negligent medical care but the defendant was still liable

Question 22

R v Jordan

Answer 22

the original act was an operative and substantial cause of the consequence, the victim was stabbed and died later, he was given “palpably wrong” medical treatment that lead to his death as the stabbing wounds had almost healed, the defendant was not liable

Question 23

R v Blaue (1975)

Answer 23

thin skull test, the victim was stabbed but refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds, even though this was unforeseeable for the defendant they must take the victim as they find them

Question 24

Vickers (1975)

Answer 24

intention, the mens rea of murder can be implied from an intention to cause GBH, the defendant does not need to have the intent to kill

Question 25

Mohan (1975)

Answer 25

intention, “a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused’s power, (not the prohibited consequence), no matter whether the accused desired that the consequence of his act or not” the defendants motive is irrelevant when deciding intention

Question 26

Nedrick (1986)

Answer 26

oblique intention, poured paraffin through a woman’s letterbox and set it alight, a child died in the fire, the defendant was convicted for murder but the sentence was reduced to manslaughter
the judge said the jury needed to ask two questions
1. how probable was the consequence which resulted from the defendant’s voluntary acts?
2. Did the defendant foresee that consequence?

Question 27

Woolin (1998)

Answer 27

oblique intention, threw his baby towards the pram which was by a wall, the baby suffered head injuries and died, the court dismissed the 2 questions from Nedrick but used the model direction changing the word “infer” to “find” as they felt this would clarify the law

Question 28

Matthew and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 28

oblique intention, defendants dropped the victim into a river despite being told he cant swim, he drowned.
foresight of consequences is not intention but is a rule of evidence
it is for the jury to decide whether oblique intention exists based on the evidence as presented to them

Question 29

Cunningham (1957)

Answer 29

recklessness, tore a gas metre off the wall to steal money from it, the gas leaked and made a woman very ill, he was charged with “maliciously administering a noxious thing”, “the accused has foreseen that the particular kind of harm might be done and yet has gone on to take the risk of it”

Question 30

R v G and Another (2003)

Answer 30

two boys set some newspapers on fire under a wheelie bin and left thinking it had gone out, the fire caused a lot of damage, seeing a risk and still taking it

Question 31

Latimer (1886)

Answer 31

transferred malice, tried to hit a man with his belt, belt recoiled and hit a woman in the face, both offences were similar so the defendant was found guilty

Question 32

Pembliton (1874)

Answer 32

transferred malice, was involved in a fight and threw a stone at his attackers, the stone broke a window but the defendants intention could not be transferred

Question 33

Thabo Meli (1954)

Answer 33

transferred malice, defendants attacked a man and threw his body over a cliff not knowing he was alive, he died in the water from exposure and the defendants were convicted of murder

Question 34

Church (1965)

Answer 34

transferred malice, defendant and victim had sex, she laughed and they fought, she was knocked unconscious, thinking she was dead he threw her body in a river where she drowned, church was convicted of manslaughter

Question 35

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)

Answer 35

continuing act, Fagan drove onto a policeman’s foot, despite being asked to move the car several times he refused, he was convicted of assaulting a policeman, the mens rea was present while the actus reus was still continuing

Question 36

Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1984)

Answer 36

defendants built a building and part of it collapsed because they deviated from the original plans which is illegal in Hong Kong law, they were convicted

Question 37

Sweet v Parsley (1969)

Answer 37

strict liability, regulatory offences v true crime, sublet a farmhouse to some tenants who were smoking cannabis on the property and she was found guilty however she appealed and was therefore innocent

Question 38

Harrow London Borough Council v Shah (1999)

Answer 38

strict liability, an issue of social/public concern, a shopkeeper was prosecuted for selling a lottery ticket to a minor even though they believed he was 16 as he should have been more vigilant

Question 39

Alphacell v Woodward (1972)

Answer 39

strict liability, the wording of the statute - did parliament intend to create an offence of strict liability, the defendants were charged with polluting a river even though they did not know, they caused the polluted matter to enter the river and were therefore liable

Question 40

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

Answer 40

strict liability, gravity of the punishment, Callow was a butcher who thought he had taken reasonable care when he asked a vet to examine a carcass, the vet said it was fit for human consumption so he sold it but it wasn’t he was guilty of “exposing unfit meat for sale”, the damage to his reputation was far greater than the small fine he recieved