Cases/Legislation

Question 1

Fagan v Police Commissioner

Answer 1

Constable was assisting someone in parking a car. Fagan accidentally parked it on the constable’s foot, but then refused to move it. Charged with assaulting a police officer.

Significance: Mens rea can be super-imposed onto an existing act, but still must co-incide.

Question 2

R v Miller

Answer 2

Facts: Miller was a homeless person in an unoccupied house. He fell asleep with a lit cigarette in his mouth, which fell and lit the mattress on fire. He woke up, perceived the fire and did nothing about it, then moved to another room.

Significance: Example of creation of a dangerous situation making one liable for an omission crime. Also an example of a reckless mens rea.

Question 3

Thabo Meli v Queen

Answer 3

Facts: Several conspirators lured their victim to a hut, struck him several times over the head. Believing him dead, they left him outside where he died of exposure.

Significance: Example of merger/single transaction in which multiple actus reus added up to murder. The mens rea was present in the first act but not in the second, even though the second is what resulted in death. Were found guilty of murder.

Question 4

R v Pittwood

Answer 4

Facts: Pittwood found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter after forgetting to close the gates at a level-crossing. A cart driver drove through the open gate, was hit by a train, and died.

Significance: Example of criminal liability arising out of a contractual duty. Example of special duty scenario where one can be guilty by omission.

Question 5

R v Gibbins/Proctor

Answer 5

Facts: Gibbins (father) and Proctor (step-mother/partner) neglected Gibbins’ daugher to the point where she died of starvation. Both attempted to conceal the death. Proctor argued no duty of care. Gibbins argued no knowledge.

Significance: Guilt by omission due to a familial (Gibbins) and family-like (Proctor) relationship. Proctor denied the girl food with intent to harm. Gibbins likely did know, and if he didn’t, was neglectful.

Question 6

R v Stone/Dobinson

Answer 6

Facts: Couple with severe learning difficulties. Stone’s sister was struggling with anorexia and came to stay. Her condition worsened and she eventually died. Stone and Dobinson had tried calling a GP but couldn’t work the phone. They failed to ask a visiting social worker for help.

Significance: They had assumed responsibility for the sister, making them criminally liable when she died.

Question 7

R v Dalloway

Answer 7

Facts: Driver of a horsedrawn cart wasn’t holding the reins. Three year old ran in front of the cart and was trampled. Was found not guilty as even if he’d been holding the reins, he wouldn’t have been able to stop the cart.

Significance: Causation in law - conduct must have made a difference.

Question 8

R v Pagett

Answer 8

Facts: Pregnant 16-yr-old held hostage in a dark staircase. Pagett fired at police, police fired back in self-defence and killed the girl. Pagett found guilty for her death.

Significance: For a novus actus to break the chain of causation, it must be free/voluntary. As the police were compelled by self-defence, it did not break the chain and Pagett was found responsible.

Question 9

R v Michael

Answer 9

Facts: Mother gave poison to a nurse for her child, telling the nurse it was medecine. Nurse gave it to another child, who died.

Significance: To break the causal chain, an intervening third party must be fully informed of the circumstances. As the nurse was misinformed, no break in causal chain and Mother guilty.

Question 10

R v Blaue

Answer 10

Facts: Blaue stabbed V. She was taken to hospital, but refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds and died. He was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter (diminished capacity).

Significance: Refusal of medical treatment does not break the causal chain, as the medical treatment would not have been required but for the crime.

Question 11

R v Mellor

Answer 11

Facts: V was beaten, then taken to hospital, where he died 2 days later. Evidence showed he was given negligent medical treatment, but cause of death was ultimately the injuries from the beating.

Significance: Causation - the crime doesn’t have to be the sole cause of the death, as long as it significantly contributed to the death.

Question 12

R v Jordan

Answer 12

Facts: Jordan stabbed V, who died in hospital 8 days later. V received negligent medical treatment, including being given a medicine he had a known intolerance to, and excessive fluids. Found that the medical negligence was the direct and immediate cause of death, not the stabbing.

Signficance: Causation - negligent medical attention can break the causal chain if it is negligent enough to truly supervene the injury from the crime.

Question 13

Constable was assisting someone in parking a car. D accidentally parked it on the constable’s foot, but then refused to move it. Charged with assaulting a police officer.

Significance: Mens rea can be super-imposed onto an existing act, but still must co-incide.

Answer 13

Fagan v Police Commissioner

Question 14

Facts: D was a homeless person in an unoccupied house. He fell asleep with a lit cigarette in his mouth, which fell and lit the mattress on fire. He woke up, perceived the fire and did nothing about it, then moved to another room.

Significance: Example of creation of a dangerous situation making one liable for an omission crime. Also an example of a reckless mens rea.

Answer 14

R v Miller

Question 15

Facts: Several conspirators lured their victim to a hut, struck him several times over the head. Believing him dead, they left him outside where he died of exposure.

Significance: Example of merger/single transaction in which multiple actus reus added up to murder. The mens rea was present in the first act but not in the second, even though the second is what resulted in death. Were found guilty of murder.

Answer 15

Thabo Meli v Queen

Question 16

Facts: D found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter after forgetting to close the gates at a level-crossing. A cart driver drove through the open gate, was hit by a train, and died.

Significance: Example of criminal liability arising out of a contractual duty. Example of special duty scenario where one can be guilty by omission.

Answer 16

R v Pittwood

Question 17

Facts: Father and Step-mother/partner neglected daugher to the point where she died of starvation. Both attempted to conceal the death. Partner argued no duty of care. Father argued no knowledge.

Significance: Guilt by omission due to a familial and family-like relationship. Partner denied the girl food with intent to harm. Father likely did know, and if he didn’t, was neglectful.

Answer 17

R v Gibbins/Proctor

Question 18

Facts: Couple with severe learning difficulties. Sister was struggling with anorexia and came to stay. Her condition worsened and she eventually died. Couple had tried calling a GP but couldn’t work the phone. They failed to ask a visiting social worker for help.

Significance: They had assumed responsibility for the sister, making them criminally liable when she died.

Answer 18

R v Stone/Dobinson

Question 19

Facts: Driver of a horsedrawn cart wasn’t holding the reins. Three year old ran in front of the cart and was trampled. Was found not guilty as even if he’d been holding the reins, he wouldn’t have been able to stop the cart.

Significance: Causation in law - conduct must have made a difference.

Answer 19

R v Dalloway

Question 20

Facts: Pregnant 16-yr-old held hostage in a dark staircase. D fired at police, police fired back in self-defence and killed the girl. D found guilty for her death.

Significance: For a novus actus to break the chain of causation, it must be free/voluntary. As the police were compelled by self-defence, it did not break the chain and Pagett was found responsible.

Answer 20

R v Pagett

Question 21

Facts: Mother gave poison to a nurse for her child, telling the nurse it was medecine. Nurse gave it to another child, who died.

Significance: To break the causal chain, an intervening third party must be fully informed of the circumstances. As the nurse was misinformed, no break in causal chain and Mother guilty.

Answer 21

R v Michael

Question 22

Facts: D stabbed V. She was taken to hospital, but refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds and died. He was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter (diminished capacity).

Significance: Refusal of medical treatment does not break the causal chain, as the medical treatment would not have been required but for the crime.

Answer 22

R v Blaue

Question 23

Facts: V was beaten, then taken to hospital, where he died 2 days later. Evidence showed he was given negligent medical treatment, but cause of death was ultimately the injuries from the beating.

Significance: Causation - the crime doesn’t have to be the sole cause of the death, as long as it significantly contributed to the death.

Answer 23

R v Mellor

Question 24

Facts: D stabbed V, who died in hospital 8 days later. V received negligent medical treatment, including being given a medicine he had a known intolerance to, and excessive fluids. Found that the medical negligence was the direct and immediate cause of death, not the stabbing.

Signficance: Causation - negligent medical attention can break the causal chain if it is negligent enough to truly supervene the injury from the crime.

Answer 24

R v Jordan

Question 25

R v Evans

Answer 25

Facts: D bought heroin and provided some to her half-sister, who injected herself. Noticed her sister seemed to have overdosed, did not call for medical assistance. Guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.

Significance: Since D supplied the heroin, and recognised the danger her sister was in, she had created a dangerous situation, which gave rise to a duty of care.

Question 26

Facts: D bought heroin and provided some to her half-sister, who injected herself. Noticed her sister seemed to have overdosed, did not call for medical assistance. Guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.

Significance: Since D supplied the heroin, and recognised the danger her sister was in, she had created a dangerous situation, which gave rise to a duty of care.

Answer 26

R v Evans

Question 27

R v White

Answer 27

Facts: D attempted to poison his mother, however the dose of cyanide was very low. Post-mortem showed that the cyanide didn’t kill her, an unrelated heart attack did. D was found guilty of attempted murder, but not murder.

Significance: Causation - he had mens rea, but his actions did not cause the death.

Question 28

R v Broughton

Answer 28

Facts: D gave his gf drugs at a music festival. She had a bad reaction. She died after 4+ hours. Expert evidence said that if she’d gotten medical attention, there was only a 90% chance she’d live, and it wasn’t clear at what point there was a clear and obvious risk of death. Appeal allowed and gross negligence manslaughter conviction overturned.

Significance: Causation and guilt by omission - the duty of care would have only arisen once there was a clear and obvious risk of death. Additionally, as only 90% chance of survival, she may have died anyways, so the evidence didn’t prove causation to the criminal standard.

Question 29

R v Roberts

Answer 29

Facts: D made unwanted sexual advances towards V in his car. He told her of how he had used force in the past. He attempted to remove her clothing and she jumped from the vehicle. Found guilty for the injuries sustained when she hit the pavement.

Significance: Causation - was the injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence?

Question 30

R v Kennedy (No 2)

Answer 30

Facts: D prepared syringe of heroin at request of V. V self-administered; D left the room. V was found dead of overdose. Conviction of ULAD manslaughter was overturned as V’s voluntary and informed decision broke the causal chain.

Significance: Example of victim’s actions breaking causal chain. No duty of care due to lack of relationship and lack of D’s presence during the death.

Question 31

R v Wallace

Answer 31

Facts: D threw acid on V. V was disfigured, visually impaired, paralysed, and in constant pain. V returned to Belgium and successfully applied for euthanasia under Belgian law. D found guilty of murder.

Significance: Causation - on the but for test, V would not have sought euthanasia but for his injuries. It was not a novus actus as it was not free/voluntary but rather compelled by the injuries from the original event.

Question 32

R v Moloney

Answer 32

Facts: D and stepfather had a drunken match to establish who was quicker on the draw with a shotgun. Murder conviction substituted with manslaughter conviction.

Significance: Oblique intention - D did not perceive that firing the gun would injure his stepfather.

Question 33

R v Woollin

Answer 33

Facts: D threw 3 month old son onto a hard surface after losing temper. Argued that he had not perceived the injuries as virtually certain at the time of the act.

Significance: Lays out the test for oblique intention - virtually certain result, which D perceives as such, allowing jury to find intention. “Virtually certain” NOT “substantial risk”.

Question 34

Re A

Answer 34

Facts: Conjoined twins, saving the stronger twin will certainly kill the weaker twin. However, if no intervention, they both die.

Significance: The surgeons satisfied the oblique intention test, however declared not manslaughter to intervene. Example of moral elbow room.

Question 35

R v Latimer

Answer 35

Facts: D was aiming for a man but accidentally struck and wounded a woman behind him with his belt. Found guilty of unlawful and malicious wounding, even without mens rea to hurt V.

Significance: Immaterial variations do not affect finding of mens rea (transferred malice).

Question 36

R v Cunningham

Answer 36

Facts: D entered a house and wrenched out the gas meter, stealing the contents. He left a supply pipe discharging coal gas, which seeped into the adjoining house and endangered the woman living there. Initial trial - jury was misdirected as to meaning of the word “malicious”, so conviction was quashed on appeal.

Significance: Recklessness and maliciousness require some amount of foresight of the injury.

Question 37

R v Stephenson

Answer 37

Facts: D went to sleep in a haystack in a field. Was cold, so lit a fire of twigs in the haystack. The haystack caught fire, D was convicted of arson. On appeal, expert evidence stated D had schizophrenia so may not have been capable of understanding the danger.

Significance: Recklessness requires a subjective foresight of the danger.

Question 38

R v Adebolajo and Adebowale

Answer 38

Facts: Adebolajo believed he was a soldier fighting a war. He targeted a soldier because they were ‘engaged in fighting an unjust war on behalf of the State’. Found guilty of murder.

Significance: King’s Peace relates to status of victim, not the killer. Can’t be killed for a war you’re not aware of.

Question 39

Facts: D believed he was a soldier fighting a war. He targeted a soldier because they were ‘engaged in fighting an unjust war on behalf of the State’. Found guilty of murder.

Significance: King’s Peace relates to status of victim, not the killer. Can’t be killed for a war you’re not aware of.

Answer 39

R v Adebolajo and Adebowale

Question 40

Facts: D went to sleep in a haystack in a field. Was cold, so lit a fire of twigs in the haystack. The haystack caught fire, D was convicted of arson. On appeal, expert evidence stated D had schizophrenia so may not have been capable of understanding the danger.

Significance: Recklessness requires a subjective foresight of the danger.

Answer 40

R v Stephenson

Question 41

Facts: D entered a house and wrenched out the gas meter, stealing the contents. He left a supply pipe discharging coal gas, which seeped into the adjoining house and endangered the woman living there. Initial trial - jury was misdirected as to meaning of the word “malicious”, so conviction was quashed on appeal.

Significance: Recklessness and maliciousness require some amount of foresight of the injury.

Answer 41

R v Cunningham

Question 42

Facts: D was aiming for a man but accidentally struck and wounded a woman behind him with his belt. Found guilty of unlawful and malicious wounding, even without mens rea to hurt V.

Significance: Immaterial variations do not affect finding of mens rea (transferred malice).

Answer 42

R v Latimer

Question 43

Facts: Conjoined twins, saving the stronger twin will certainly kill the weaker twin. However, if no intervention, they both die.

Significance: The surgeons satisfied the oblique intention test, however declared not manslaughter to intervene. Example of moral elbow room.

Answer 43

Re A

Question 44

Facts: D threw 3 month old son onto a hard surface after losing temper. Argued that he had not perceived the injuries as virtually certain at the time of the act.

Significance: Lays out the test for oblique intention - virtually certain result, which D perceives as such, allowing jury to find intention. “Virtually certain” NOT “substantial risk”.

Answer 44

R v Woollin

Question 45

Facts: D and stepfather had a drunken match to establish who was quicker on the draw with a shotgun. Murder conviction substituted with manslaughter conviction.

Significance: Oblique intention - D did not perceive that firing the gun would injure his stepfather.

Answer 45

R v Moloney

Question 46

Facts: D threw acid on V. V was disfigured, visually impaired, paralysed, and in constant pain. V returned to Belgium and successfully applied for euthanasia under Belgian law. D found guilty of murder.

Significance: Causation - on the but for test, V would not have sought euthanasia but for his injuries. It was not a novus actus as it was not free/voluntary but rather compelled by the injuries from the original event.

Answer 46

R v Wallace

Question 47

Facts: D prepared syringe of heroin at request of V. V self-administered; D left the room. V was found dead of overdose. Conviction of ULAD manslaughter was overturned as V’s voluntary and informed decision broke the causal chain.

Significance: Example of victim’s actions breaking causal chain. No duty of care due to lack of relationship and lack of D’s presence during the death.

Answer 47

R v Kennedy (No 2)

Question 48

Facts: D made unwanted sexual advances towards V in his car. He told her of how he had used force in the past. He attempted to remove her clothing and she jumped from the vehicle. Found guilty for the injuries sustained when she hit the pavement.

Significance: Causation - was the injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence?

Answer 48

R v Roberts

Question 49

Facts: D gave his gf drugs at a music festival. She had a bad reaction. She died after 4+ hours. Expert evidence said that if she’d gotten medical attention, there was only a 90% chance she’d live, and it wasn’t clear at what point there was a clear and obvious risk of death. Appeal allowed and gross negligence manslaughter conviction overturned.

Significance: Causation and guilt by omission - the duty of care would have only arisen once there was a clear and obvious risk of death. Additionally, as only 90% chance of survival, she may have died anyways, so the evidence didn’t prove causation to the criminal standard.

Answer 49

R v Broughton

Question 50

Facts: D attempted to poison his mother, however the dose of cyanide was very low. Post-mortem showed that the cyanide didn’t kill her, an unrelated heart attack did. D was found guilty of attempted murder, but not murder.

Significance: Causation - he had mens rea, but his actions did not cause the death.

Answer 50

R v White