(Crim) General Elements

Question 1

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Answer 1

State of Affairs:
L was deported from Ireland and sent to the UK. She did not want to be in the UK and was arrested for being an Alien as soon as she got here. Guilty via state of affairs.

Question 2

R v Pittwood (1902)

Answer 2

Contractual Duty:
D was a gatekeeper at a level crossing, went on his lunchbreak without closing it. Car crossed it and was hit. D was convicted of manslaughter.

Question 3

R v Dytham (1979)

Answer 3

Professional Duty:
An off duty policeman watched a man being beat to death but did nothing. He was found guilty as he has a duty to protect from the attackers.

Question 4

R v Stone & Dobinson (1977)

Answer 4

Voluntary Acceptance of Responsibility:
D1 and D2 were a couple who had “Low Intelligence”. They took care of Stone’s anorexic sister to look after her. She became increasingly ill and died under their control. Both the defendants were found guilty of manslaughter.

Question 5

R v Miller (1983)

Answer 5

Create a Dangerous Situation:
D was a squatter and fell asleep while smoking a cigarette. He woke up to the mattress burning but fell back to sleep. He was found guilty of arson as he did nothing to stop the fire.

Question 6

Greener v DPP (1996)

Answer 6

Statutory Duty:
A dangerous dog escaped into D’s neighbours garden and attacked a young child. D was guilty of having his dog enter a place it shouldn’t be.

Question 7

R v Kimsey (1996)

Answer 7

Substantial and Operative Clause Rule:
D was in a high speed car chase with her friend V whom she killed after losing control of the car. As long as there is some link between D’s actions and the death, they will be guilty.

Question 8

R v Jordan (1956)

Answer 8

Medical Treatment:
D stabbed the victim. But V was recovering well until he was given a large quantity of medicine he was allergic to. The treatment was “Palpably wrong” so D was not responsible for murder.

Question 9

R v Smith (1959)

Answer 9

Medical Treatment:
D and V were soldiers. V was stabbed and then dropped several times on the way to the hospital and was made to wait due to the staff not appreciating how bad the injuries were. The stab was still a substantial cause of the death so D was guilty.

Question 10

R v Cheshire (1991)

Answer 10

Medical Treatment:
D shot V after a fight in a chippy. V received negligent medical treatment and eventually died after getting an infection. D’s conviction was upheld. Medical treatment doesn’t normally break chain of causation.

Question 11

R v Roberts (1978)

Answer 11

The Victim:
D was giving V a lift and was touching her clothes inappropriately in the car. V jumped out of the car and D was held liable as it was foreseeable that she would do that.

Question 12

R v Pagett (1983)

Answer 12

A Third Party:
D was being chased by police and held his pregnant girlfriend hostage. He opened fire at the police, the police opened fire back and the girlfriend was killed. It was reasonably foreseeable that the police would return fire so D was liable.

Question 13

R v Blaue (1975)

Answer 13

Thin Skull Rule:
D stabbed his girlfriend as she refused to have sex with him. She needed a blood transfusion but she was a Jehovah’s witness and she could not. You have to take your victim mentally, physically and spiritually. Blaue was liable for her death.

Question 14

R v Cunningham (1957)

Answer 14

Subjective Recklessness:
D broke into an unoccupied house and removed a gas meter. Removing the meter made the gas escape into the neighbours house and the neighbour died. D removed it knowing there could be a risk of death. D was guilty.

Question 15

R v G & R (2003)

Answer 15

Subjective Recklessness:
2 children but a newspaper in a wheelie bin and set fire to it. The fire spread to other buildings and caused £1,000,000 worth of damage. The defendants had not appreciated the risks so they were not guilty of arson.

Question 16

R v Latimer (1886)

Answer 16

Transferred Malice:
During a pub argument, D took of his belt to hit someone, swung it at his intended victim but hit someone else by mistake. Malice was transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim and D was guilty.

Question 17

R v Pembliton (1874)

Answer 17

Transferred Malice:
D threw a stone at someone, missed and then hit a window and smashed it. The mens rea for battery cannot be changed to the mens rea of criminal damage. D was not guilty.

Question 18

R v Gnango (2011)

Answer 18

Transferred Malice:
G and B (who was never apprehended) were shooting at each other. B shot and killed a passer by while aiming at G. They would have both been liable for murder due to transferred malice.

Question 19

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

Answer 19

Continuing Act Theory:
D accidentally drove onto a policeman’s foot while being asked to move. Policeman told him to get off. Fagan replied “Fuck you, you can wait”. The actus reus was continuing so even if he did not initially want to drive over the foot, what he said proves he had the MR sometime during the AR.

Question 20

Thabo Meli v R (1954)

Answer 20

Transaction Theory:
Defendants set out to kill the victim by hitting him over the head and pushing his body off a cliff making it look lie an accident. After they hit him over the head, they thought he was dead and pushed him off the cliff. V died from the fall and the exposure. Was all part of the same series of events so defendants were guilty.

Question 21

Gammon Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong (1985)

Answer 21

Strict Liability:
Defendants were carrying out building work when part of the building collapsed due to changed plans. The defendants were all guilty of changing the plans even though they were not aware that the plans were changed.

Question 22

Sweet v Parsley (1970)

Answer 22

Strict Liability:
D (a schoolteacher) rented out a house to a group of people who used to house to smoke weed. She was not guilty as she had no knowledge and therefore no mens rea.

Question 23

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

Answer 23

Regulatory Offences:
D was a butcher and asked a vet to check whether or not a carcass was fit for consumption. The vet said it was but it was not. D was still guilty even though he got it checked.

Question 24

Alphacell v Woodward (1972)

Answer 24

Regulatory Offences:
Alphacell was prosecuted when dirty water from their factory entered a river. The company had a system in place to try and ensure that the stream was not polluted. They were still liable.

Question 25

Smedleys v Breed (1974)

Answer 25

Regulatory Offences:
Defendants were convicted when a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas. They had taken all reasonable precautions to stop this from happening. They were still convicted.

Question 26

Harrow LBC v Shah (1999)

Answer 26

Regulatory Offences:
A shop owner sold a lottery ticket to someone under 16. Even though they thought they were older, they were still liable.

Question 27

Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)

Answer 27

Wording of the Act:
D was a landlord who was accused of selling alcohol to someone who was already drunk. Was held to be a strict liability offence and they were liable.

Question 28

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)

Answer 28

Absolute Liability:
D was hospitalised as they thought he was ill. D was just drunk so the hospital threw him out. The police then arrested him for being drunk in public. He was still convicted and found guilty.