Cases(Murder&Manslaughter)

Question 0

R v Miller (1983)
Living in a squat, fell asleep with a cigarette, woke to find his mattress on fire, ignored it. The house caught on fire.

Answer 0

Failed to take the reasonable steps to prevent the fire.

The omission was enough to satisfy the actus reus.

Question 1

Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Father of a girl, deliberately starved her to death.

Answer 1

Duty because of a specific relationship.

Omission to feed her amounted to murder as they were responsible for a duty of care.

Question 2

R v Pittwood (1902)

Railway crossing keeper, failed to shut the gates

Answer 2

Contractual Duty

Failures to fulfil the contractual duty.

Question 3

Stone and Dobinson (1977)

Voluntary assumption of a duty.

Answer 3

They had voluntarily taken on the duty of care for fanny, failed to help her or summon help. They breached the duty of care.

Question 4

R v Adams (1957)

A doctor was “easing the passing” of a patient to hasten the death.

Answer 4

If first the purpose of medicine cannot be achieved, there is still much for the doctor to do, he is entitled to do all the is necessary to relieve pain and suffering, even if measures taken shorten life.

Question 5

Airedale National Health Trust v Bland (1993)

Tony Bland was crushed in the Hilllsborough disaster, put onto life support. No signs of recovery after 3 years.

Answer 5

The HL likened the situation to an omission.
Lord Goff said: “discontinuation of a life support Is no different from initiating life support in the first place”
Hospital would not face criminal liability.

Question 6

Attorney General’s Reference (no.3 of 1994) (1997)

Stabbed pregnant girlfriend in the stomach, baby was born prematurely and then died.

Answer 6

Just because the child had not yet been born at the time of the attack did not prevent a murder conviction when it later died.
However, on the facts, it was not possible to transfer the malice for the murder of the baby.
Charge of manslaughter was possible.

Question 7

R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)
Stabbed his wife who was taken to hospital and put on life support.
Suffered 2 heart failures, and after 10 days had an irretrievable brain damage.
Doctors turned off the machine.

Answer 7

Brain stem test, doctors decision did not break the chain of causation.
CA held: “there is a body of opinion in the medical profession that there is only one true test of death and this irreversible death of the brain stem, which controls the basic functions of the body such as breathing”.

Question 8

R v Pagett (1983)
D being chased by the police.
Took his girlfriend and used her as a human shield and fired, police returned fire.
D argued he wasn’t the cause of his girlfriends death.

Answer 8

It was reasonably foreseeable that the police would return fire if shot at, therefore his conviction was upheld.
Would not have happened BUT FOR the Ds actions.

Question 9

R v Blaue (1975)

Stabbed the V. V refused to have a blood transfusion as she was a Jehovah’s Witness.

Answer 9

D must take the victim as he found her, including religious beliefs. Guilty.

Question 10

Jordan (1956)
V had been stabbed in the stomach, was treated in hospital, wounds were healing well. He was given antibiotics but suffered an allergic reaction, doctor stopped the dose but the next day another ordered double dose. V died.

Answer 10

The action of the doctor were an intervening act which caused the death, as the V was previously recovering.

Question 11

Williams (1992)
Hitchhiker jumped from a moving car and died from head injuries. An attempt to steal the Vs wallet is what made him jump.

Answer 11

Was the reaction of the victim reasonably foreseeable and in proportion to the threat.

Question 12

R v Vickers
Broke into the cellar of a sweet shop.
Deaf owner.

Answer 12

Upheld Vs conviction for murder on the basis that where a D intends to inflict GBH onto another and that person dies, this is sufficient to imply malice aforethought for murder.

Question 13

R v Cunningham

Hit victim over a head with a stool, v died from head injuries.

Answer 13

HL held that an intention to cause really serious harm was sufficient for the mens rea of murder.
Confirmed the law set out in Vickers.

Question 14

DPP v Smith (1961) HL
D tried to escape from the police in a car, was signalled to stop, he didn’t PC jumped onto bonnet. He was thrown off and killed.

Answer 14

Clear that he intended to cause grevious bodily harm, which meant no more and no less than really serious injury.

Question 15

Moloney (1985)
D and step father were both drunk.
Competing to see who was fastest at loading a firing a gun.

Answer 15

Was convicted of murder, but was quashed on appeal.
D didn’t appreciate the danger so didn’t have foresight of consequences.
HL said foresight of consequences is where D knows that the result is a “natural consequence of his actions and D recognised this”.

Question 16

Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Miners on strike, pushed a concrete block off a bridge.

Answer 16

Judge used moloney guidelines, HL quashed as they felt it was no longer appropriate.
The greater the probability of the consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen, and that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability that consequence was also intended.

Question 17

Nedrick (1986)

Poured paraffin though a woman’s letterbox and set it alight.

Answer 17

Held the law in Moloney and Hancock and Shankland needed to be made clearer.
The law should be that the jury are entitled to infer intention unless sure that death or serious bodily injury was a certainty and D appreciated this.