Chapter 6 key cases (General elements of criminal liability)

Question 1

R v Hill v Baxter (1958)?

Answer 1

• Defendant ignored sign that said ‘halt’ and carried on resulting his van to crash.
• He claimed he remembered nothing after the crash and became an automation.
• He was convicted as there was no real evidence of this.
• The court gave examples where the driver could not be said doing the the act of driving voluntarily like being stung by a swarm of bees, being struck on the head or having a heart attack while driving.

Question 2

R v Larsonnear (1933)?

Answer 2

• Defendant a french woman had been ordered to leave the UK
• She decided to go to Ireland, but the Irish police took her back to the UK.
• She did not do this voluntarily, she was taken back to England against her will.
• She was immediately arrested when she got to the UK and was charged with being an ‘alien’ (illegal immigrant).
• She was convicted although it was not her decision to go back.

Question 3

R v Pittwood (1902)?

Answer 3

• Railway-crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates so that a person crossing the line was struck and killed by a train.
• The keeper was guilty of manslaughter, due to his virtue of contractual duty, because of his failure to close the gate.

Question 4

R v Gibbons and proctor (1918)?

Answer 4

• The child’s father and his mistress failed to feed the child, so it died of starvation.
• They had a duty to feed the child as a result of the relationship of parent to child.
• Their omission to feed their child formed the actus reus of the offence, so they were guilty of murder.

Question 5

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)?

Answer 5

• stones elderly sister came to live with the defendants.
• She became ill and was unable to look after herself.
• She died and the two defendants were convicted of manslaughter, as the deceased was Stones sister so he owed a duty to care for her.
• Dobinson also undertook the care, so he also owed a duty to care.
• They could’ve looked after her themselves or found someone else to look after her but they failed to do both so they were in breach of their duty, this formed the actus reus of the crime.

Question 6

R v Evans (2009)?

Answer 6

• The victim was a 16 year old heroine addict who loved with her mother and older half-sister.
• The half-sister bought some heroine and gave it to the victim who injected the drug herself.
• It was obvious that she had overdosed, but neither mother or half-sister tried to get medical help.
• They put her to bed and hoped she would recover, she later died.
• The mother owed a duty of care to her daughter and the half-sister had created a situation that was life threatening so she had also owed a duty.

Question 7

R v Dothan (1979)?

Answer 7

• Dytham, a police officer, witnessed a violent attack on the victim but took no steps to intervene or summon help; instead drove away from the scene.
• The officer was guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty.

Question 8

R v Miller (1983)?

Answer 8

• Defendant, a squatter, fell asleep in an empty house.
• His lit cig fell onto the bed and a fire started.
• He realised and went to fall asleep in another room, he dint attempt to put out the fire or summon help.
• He was guilty of arson under the Criminal Damage act 1971, s1.

Question 9

R v Pagget (1983)?

Answer 9

• Defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at an armed policeman.
• The policeman fired back and his girlfriend was killed.
• Pagget was convicted of her manslaughter, because she would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield.

Question 10

R v white (1910)?

Answer 10

• Defendant put cyanide in his mothers drink, intending to kill her.
• She died of a heart attack before she could drink it.
• The defendant was not the factual cause of her death, so he was guilty of attempted murder.

Question 11

R v Blaue (1975)?

Answer 11

• A young woman was stabbed by the defendant, she was told she needed a blood transfusion to save her life but she refused for religious beliefs.
• She died and the defendant was convicted for murder.
• Despite the fact that her religious belief made the wound fatal, the defendant was still guilty because he had to take his victim as he found her.

Question 12

R v Smith (1959)?

Answer 12

• Two soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung by the other.
• The victim was carried to a medical centre by other soldiers, but was dropped on the way.
• At the medical centre the staff gave him artificial respiration by pressing onto his chest, but this made the injuries worse and he died.
• If he had been given the proper treatment, his chance of serving would have been 75% higher.
• Despite this the original attacker was still guilty of his murder, this was because his original wound was the overwhelming reason for his death (the substantial cause).
• The stabbing was more than the minimal cause ( the de minimus rule).

Question 13

R v Cheshire (1959)?

Answer 13

• The defendant shot the victim in the thigh and the stomach.
• The victim had problems breathing and was given a tracheotomy.
• The victim died from rare complications of the tracheotomy, which were not spotted by the doctors.
• Byt the time he died the original injuries were no longer life threatening.
• The defendant was still held liable for his death.

Question 14

R v Jordan (1956)?

Answer 14

• The victim had been stabbed in the stomach.
• He was treated in hospital and the wounds were healing well, he was given antibiotics but suffered an allergic reaction from it.
• But the next day the doctor ordered a large dose to be given.
• The victim died from an allergic reaction to the drug.
• In this case, the actions of the doctor were held to be an intervening act which caused the death.
• The defendant was not guilty of murder because the stab wound was the substantial cause.

Question 15

R v Roberts (1971)?

Answer 15

• A girl jumped from a car in order to escape sexual advances.
• The car was travelling at 20 and 40 mph and the girl got injured from jumping out.
• The defendant was held liable for her injuries.

Question 16

R v Williams (1992)?

Answer 16

• A hitch-hiker jumped from Williams car and died from head injuries caused by his head hitting the road.
• The car was travelling at 30 mph.
• The prosecution alleged that the driver had attempted to steal the victims wallet and was the reason he jumped out the car.
• The court stated that the victims act had to be foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to the threat, and so the injury to the victim was not caused by the defendant.

Question 17

R v Mohan (1975)?

Answer 17

• The defendant refused to stop when a policeman signalled him to do so, instead he drive towards him.
• This shows a direct intent to cause the policeman fear.

Question 18

R v Woolin (1998)?

Answer 18

• The defendant lost his temper and threw his 3 month year old son towards his pram which was against a wall.
• The baby hit his head on the wall and suffered head injuries and died.
• The court ruled the consequence must be a virtual certainty and the defendant must realise this.
• If the jury was satisfied on both these 2 points, then the jury could find intention on this evidence.

Question 19

R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003)?

Answer 19

• The two defendants had pushed the victim from a bridge over a deep wide river and drowned.
• The defendants knew the victim could not swim.
• They were convicted for murder.
• The court thought that if the jury were sure that the defendants had appreciated the virtual certainty of the victims death when they threw him into the river, it was ‘impossible’ to see how the jury could not have drawn the inference that the defendants intended the victims death.

Question 20

R v Cunningham (1957)?

Answer 20

• The defendant tore pre-payment gas metre from the wall of an empty house in order to steal the money in it.
• This caused the gas to seep into the house next door, where a woman was affected by it next door.
• Cunningham was charged with an offence of maliciously administering a noxious thing, which has the mens rea of recklessness or intention to do so.
• It was held that he was not guilty since he did not realise the risk of gas escaping into the adjacent.
• He did not intend to cause harm, nor had he taken a risk he knew about - he was not reckless.

Question 21

Pharmaceutical Society of great Britain v Stockwain Ltd (1986)?

Answer 21

• The defendant a pharmacist had supplied drugs on prescriptions, but the prescriptions had later been found out to be forged.
• He did not act dishonestly, improperly or negligently.
• The forgery was sufficiently good to deceive the pharmacist.
• Despite this he was convicted of supplying drugs without a genuine prescription.

Question 22

Callow v Tillstone (1900)?

Answer 22

• A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption.
• The vet assured him that it was, so the butcher offered it for sale.
• It was unfit and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale.

Question 23

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)?

Answer 23

• The defendants owned a newspapers business where lottery tickets were sold.
• They had told their staff and reminded them frequently not to sell tickets to anyone under 16.
• One do their staff sold a lottery ticket to a 13 year old without asking proof of age.
• The defendants owners were convicted of selling lottery ticket to a person under 16, despite best efforts.

Question 24

Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)?

Answer 24

• The defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person.
• The individual had not displayed any signs of being drunk but the offence was complete on proof that a sale had taken place and the person served was drunk.
• So the defendant was convicted.

Question 25

Sweet v Parsley (1969)?

Answer 25

• The defendant let a farmhouse to students.
• The police found cannabis at the farmhouse and the defendant was charged with ‘being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin’.
• She did not know that cannabis was being smoked there.
• It was decided she was not guilty as the court presumed that the offence required mens rea.

Question 26

R v Latimer (1886)?

Answer 26

• The defendant aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub after that man had attacked him.
• The belt bounced of the man and struck a woman in the face.
• Latimer was guilty of malicious wounding against the woman, although he had not meant to hit her.
• There was transferred malice so he could be found guilty of hitting the woman.

Question 27

R v Mitchell (1983)?

Answer 27

• The defendant tried to jump a queue at a post office.
• An elderly man questioned his behaviour and challenged him.
• The defendant hit the man and pushed him, which caused an elderly woman to fall and break her leg (she later also died).
• The mens rea directed towards the old man was transferred to the woman.

Question 28

R v Pembliton (1874)?

Answer 28

• The defendant had been fighting and threw a stone, intending to hit people whom he had been fighting.
• The stone hit and broke a window, which was criminal damage.
• The intention to hit the people could not be transferred to the window as there different mens rea for the two offences.

Question 29

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968)?

Answer 29

• Fagan was told by a police officer to park by a pavement.
• Fagan drove onto the policeman’s foot without realising he had done so.
• The policeman pointed out what happened and asked Fagan to move his car several times.
• Initially he refused to move his car and swore.
• He moved the car eventually.
• The court stated once he knew his foot was under the car, he had required the mens rea and as the actus reus was still continuing the two elements were present together so they coincided.

Question 30

R v Church (1965)?

Answer 30

• The victim mocked the defendants ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped his face.
• A fight developed and he knocked her unconscious.
• She remained unconscious for 30 mins so he believed she was dead and threw her body in a river.
• Medical evidence revealed that the cause of death was drowning so she had been alive when thrown into the river.
• A series of events had meant he was convicted for manslaughter.