Criminal - Core principles cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Hill v Baxter

A

AR - General principles

Swarm of bees in car

The act must be voluntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

R v Stone and Dobson

A

AR - Liability for omissions

Anorexic sister - no support - died

Where there is a special relationship between D due to family ties or because D has assumed a duty towards V, D may incur criminal liability for failure to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R v Pittwood

A

AR - liability for omissions

Railway gate keeper case

Where there is a contractual obligation to act, D may incur criminal liability for failure to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R v Miller

A

AR - liability for omissions

Squatter + cigarette + fire

If a person has created a dangerous situation, he has a duty to act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

R v Moloney

A

MR - Intent

D shot stepfather after drunken competition to see who could load fastest; claimed he had no direct intent to kill or cause serious harm.

Direct intent is where the result was the person’s aim, purpose, goal or desire.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R v Woollin

A

MR - Indirect/oblique intent

D killed three-month-old son by throwing against hard surface; had no desire (direct intent) to kill or injur, question remained re. indirect intent.

In deciding whether there is indirect intent, jury must decide whether:

1) the death or serious injury was virtually certain to occur as a consequence of D’s actions, and
2) if so, did D foresee death or serious injury as a virtual certainty?

If yes, jury may find indirect intent.

N.B: this confirmed the test laid out in R v Nedrick

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Cunningham

A

MR - Recklessness

D ripped gas meter from wall to steal money, causing gas to escape - seeped through small cracks in wall and poisoned FMIL.

Malice means either:

1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done, or;
2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. D foresor risk of harm but carried on). Recklessness is subjective.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R v G

A

MR - Recklessness

Schizophrenic D - hollow haystack and lit fire.

D is reckless when he carries out a deliberate act appreciating that there is a risk that damage to property may result from his act.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Latimer

A

MR - Transferred malice

D quarrelling with man in pub, aimed blow at him with belt but struck another person - injured - charged with s20 OAPA offence.

If D has malice to commit crime against one victim (or particular piece of property), malice is transferred so that MR he had in relation to original victim is applicable to the AR he commits against another, unintended victim.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

R v Pembilton

A

MR - Transferred malice

D threw stone at people, missed and broke window - charged with unlawful and with malice causing damage to property - acquitted on appeal

Malice will only transfer if AR committed is the same type as D had originally had in mind.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Thabo-Meli v R

A

Coincidence of MR and AR

Ds hit man with car with intent to kill, believed him dead and threw body off cliff (what actually killed him). Argued that not guilty of murder since AR and MR didn’t coincide. Found guilty on grounds that acts were to be viewed as a series of events.

Where there is an implied series of events, D’s actions should be seen as a continuing AR; then sufficient to show that at some time during these events, D had requisite MR for him to be found to be guilty of the crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v Le Brun

A

Coincidence of MR and AR

D assaulted wife - tried to move her but dropped her - fractured skull which eventually killed her - argued not murder as AR and MR didn’t coincide. Held confirmed Thabo-Meli:

The unlawful application of force and eventual act causing death can be viewed as the same sequence of events; the fact there was a lapse in time between the two does not enable D to escape liability.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary

A

Criminal Damage - definition of damage

Drawings on pavement made using soluble chalks; amounted to criminal damage because local authority incurred expense in cleaning up.

If expense is involved in restoring property to its previous conditions, the court is likely to find that damage has been established.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Roe v Kingerlee

A

Criminal Damage - definition of damage

D smeared ‘mud’ over the walls of a police cell; cost £7 to clean it; conviction of criminal damage upheld.

The issue of whether damage has been caused is a matter of fact and degree to be determined in the common sense way.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Dudley

A

Aggravated Criminal Damage - AR

D threw firebomb into property - quickly put out; held that MR had to be considered at the time of the act.

Life need not actually be endangered for D to be convicted of ACD. If D intended to endanger life or was reckless as to the endangerment of life through the property damage - guilty notwithstanding that no’one’s life was in danger.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Steer

A

Aggravated Criminal Damage - MR

D had an argument with former business partner, went to house with gun, rang doorbell and fired shots through the windows and doors; held not guilty of ACD because danger to life came from gun, not damage.

Must ask whether D intended (or reckless) that the damage or destruction caused should endanger life (the two must be linked).