Crim Cases for PQ Flashcards
But For Test
R v White
More than de minimis
R v Hughes
Natural event unforeseeable break chain
Harlot’s Case
Free, deliberate, informed break chain
Kennedy No.2
Extraordinary and abnormal break chain (old)
Empress Car
Innocent 3P no break
R v Saunders & Archer
If act for self-preservation/legal duty, no break
R v Pagett
Must be so potent and independent (+ sig contribution) to break
R v Cheshire
So daft that reasonable unforeseeable to break
R v Roberts
Thin skull rule
R v Blaue
If got contract got omissions liability
R v Pittwood
Police got duty to help
R v Dytham
If create dangerous situation got duty to rectify
R v Miller
If create dangerous situation got duty to rectify
R v Evans
Parents got duty to child
R v Gibbins & Proctor
Blood relative got duty (Stone), if take in as lodger got duty (Dobinson)
R v Stone & Dobinson
Friends like brothers got duty
R v Sinclair
If act is continuing then AR can coincide w MR
Fagan v Metropolitan Police
1) Virtual Certainty 2) Foresight 3) Jury entitled
R v Woollin
Foresee risk + know unreasonable to take risk
R v G
MR can be transferred if AR on V + offence same
R v Latimer
D aware of necessary degree risk (see R v G)
R v Lidar
1) Duty breached 2) Obvious and serious risk 3) Causation 4) Grossness
Adomako
Unlawful act + all sober and reasonable people foresee risk of some harm
R v Church
Knowledge of risk can be gained mid act
R v Watson
Cannot premeditation, need loss of reasoning
R v Jewell
Breakups usually not qualifying trigger, but take into account circumstances
R v Dawes
Sexual infidelity not qualifying trigger, but can evidence w others
R v Clinton
Conditional battery =/= assault
Tuberville v Savage
Everyday contact
Collins v Wilcock
Indirect contact can
DPP v K
More than merely transient and trifling
R v Donovan
Psychiatric harm included
R v Dhaliwal
Every layer of skin broken
JCC v Eisenhower
Really serious harm
DPP v Smith
Serious psychiatric harm qualify
R v Burstow
Include transmission of disease
R v Dica
Same race can, but cannot be directed at conduct
R v Pal
Same race can, but cannot be directed at conduct
Cain v CPS
Honest belief in serious violence
R v Williams (Gladstone)
Can pre-empt if honest belief
R v Bird
Objective and reasonable test + take into account heat of moment
R v Palmer
Provocation no open for SD
R v Keane
Voluntary intoxication no open for SD, unless honest belief not bc intoxication
R v O’grady
Sadomasochistic no
R v Brown
Branding w hot knife can (Tattooing)
R v Wilson
Body modification no
R v BM
Sports yes
R v Barnes
Horseplay yes
R v Jones
Psychiatric conditions not taken into account
Reasonable Belief for Sexual Offences
R v B(MA)
Mere submission is not consent
R v Doyle
Reluctant consent is still consent
R v Watson
Coercion/Economic duress = no consent
R v Kirk
Grooming no vitiate but possible
R v Ali(Yassir)
Drunken consent is still consent, unless completely incapable of choosing
R v Bree
Earlier advance before becoming unconscious insufficient for consent
R v Ciccarelli
Non-disclosure =/= deception
R v B
Lying that police was telling them to sex (no s76 but s74)
R v Jheeta
Deceived to masturbate online (humiliation revenge) - s76 purpose
R v Denovald
Deception as to pulling out vitiate
R (F) v DPP
Deception as to condom vitiate
R v Assange
Deception as to gender not s76 but s74
R v McNally
Undercover cop lie environmental beliefs - no vitiate
R v Monica
Vasectomy not nature of act (must be directly related to sex)
R v Lawrance
Switching labels = appropriation
R v Morris
Trying to sell (even if unsuccessful) = appropriation
R v Pitham & Hehl
Taking more money than necessary = appropriation (even if consent)
R v Lawrence
Consent can still appropriate
R v Gomez
Gift can still appropriate
R v Hinks
Mere possession enough to give interest
Turner (no.2)
Replacement with different insufficient
R v Velumyl
Abandoning = no intention of permanent deprivation
R v Mitchell
Objective test: standards of ordinary reasonable people with D knowledge
Ivey v Genting
Dishonestly make false rep w intention to make a gain
R v Jeevarajah
Force must hv direct physical contact
P v DPP
Slight force sufficient
R v Dawson
Theft/appropriation continuing act, so force can be afterwards
R v Hale
Must enter knowing/reckless trespass
R v Collins
Half body in = trespass
R v Brown
Permission to enter can be exceeded when steal (knowingly exceed)
R v Jones & Smith
If primary no knowledge/capacity, secondary becomes primary
R v Michael
Material support (supply tools)
R v Bainbridge
Need not be substantial; Jogee: no need causal link
R v Hussain
Spiking = procurement = assist
AG Ref No.1
Urging someone to commit a crime
Complicity
R v Calhaem
Provide info/advice
R v Baker
Encouragement can come in the form of pariticipation in shoot off
R v Gnango
Mere presence no encourage (need positive encouragement)
R v Clarkson
Mere presence can contribute to force in numbers in hostile situation
R v Jogee
Reckless insufficient, must intend
Complicity
R v Scott
Know essential matters
Johnson v Youden
Essential matters: range of offences
R v Maxwell
Essential matters: type of offence
R v Bainbridge
Need unequivocal communication of withdrawal
R v Rook
Not turning up insufficient withdrawal
R v Goodspeed
Can withdraw sponteneously from joint enterprise
R v O’Flaherty
Shared design, not similar but separate
R v Mehta
Don’t need play active part in crime (eg: organiser)
R v Siracusa
Don’t need intend for full crime; part is enough
R v Anderson
Need to intend for crime to be carried out, motive irrelevant
R v Yip Chiu-Cheung
Need to embark on crime proper
Horse race scam no claim money
R v Gullefer
Need to embark on crime proper
Kidnap no kidnap yet
R v Geddes
Intention for full offence/ suspicion not enough
R v Pace & Rogers
Impossibility of committing offence not defence
R v Shivpuri
1) Defect of reason 2) Disease of mind 3) Dunno nature/quality
McNaughton Rules
Epilepsy
R v Sullivan
Diabetes
R v Henessy
Sleepwalking
R v Burgess
Effects of tumour
R v Kemp
Need to know unlawfully AND morally wrong
Insanity
R v Keal
Internal cause = insane, external = non insane
R v Quick
Need to foresee risk of becoming aggressive
R v Bailey
Cannot for basic intent crimes
DPP v Majewski
Can for specific intent (MR gone)
R v Lipman
1) Avoid irreparable evil 2) No more than necessary 3) Evil inflicted not disproportionate to evil avoided
Re A (conjoined twins)
Perceived threat of death/GBH
R v Conway
D own reasonable belief - perceived threat?
R v Martin
D act reasonably and proportionately to threat
R v Martin
Sober person of reasonable firmness act like D?
R v Graham
Opportunity to evade threat?
R v Bradford
If threat from criminal enterprise/gang association, no duress
R v Z(Hasan)
Murder no duress
R v Gotts
