Criminal law Flashcards
1
Q
R v Hill V baxter
A
- bees
- The D ignored a road sign that said halt and carried on, causing his van to crash
- He said that he was an automaton (behaving like a mechanical machine)
- He was convivted as there was no real evidence of this
- The act or omission must be voluntary
- Court gave example of losing control of vehicle whilst being stung by a swarm of bees
2
Q
R v Larsonneur
A
- Alien
- French woman had been asked to leave UK
- She went to Ireland
- Irish police deported her back to the UK although she did not want to go back
- Was convicted of being an alien whom refused to leave the UK- illegal immigrant
- Some instances when the D didnt wish to act but occured through state of affairs
3
Q
R v Pittwood
A
- Railway
-A railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates so that a person crossing the line was struck and killed - Keeper was charged with manslaughter
- breach of contractual duty
4
Q
R v Gibbins and Proctor
A
- Malnourish
- Childs father and his mistress failed to feed the child so that it died of starvation
- Breached duty which exists due to a relationship
5
Q
R v Stone and Dobinson
A
- Sister
- Stones elderly sister came to live with the D
- She became ill and unable to care for herself
- 2 d were convicted of manslaughter
- Duty undetaken voluntarily
6
Q
R v Evans
A
- Heroin
- R was a 16 year old heroin addict who lived with her mother and her half older sister
- Half sister bought some heroin and gave it to the V
- V overdosed, neither mother or sister tried to help
- Mother owed a duty of care to her daughter
- Sister owed her a duty of care as she presented her with the dangerous situation
7
Q
R v Dytham
A
- Police officer
- Witnessed a violent attack on the V but took no steps to intervene or summon help
- The officer was found guilty
- Duty arises from an official position
8
Q
R v Miller
A
- Cigarette
- D fell asleep in an empty house whilst smoking a cig
- Lit cig fell onto mattress and started a fire
- When he awoke and realised, he left the room and went to sleep in another room
- he was found guilty of arson
- Duty arises because the D has set in motion a chain of events
9
Q
R v Pagett
A
- Human shield
- D used pregnant GF as human shield whilst he shot at armed policemen
- Police shot back and the gf was killed
- Pagett was convicted of manslaughter
- She would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield
10
Q
R v White
A
- Cyanide
- D attempted to kill his mother by putting cyanide in her drink
- She died of a heart attack before she could drink it
- D was not the factual cause of her death
11
Q
R v Blaue
A
- Blood transfusion
- A woman was stabbed and told she needed a blood transfusion but rejected it due to religous beliefs
- As a result of this she died
- D was still found guilty due to think skull rule
- Had to take victim as he found her
12
Q
R v Smith
A
- Soldier
- 2 soldiers had a fight, one was stabbed in the lung
- The doctor gave him artifical respirations by pressing on his chest, this made the injury worse and he died
- Despite this the original attacker was still found guilty as the stab wound was the overwhelming cause of the death
- De minimis rule - need be more than minimal but need not be the substantial cause
13
Q
R v Cheshire
A
- Tracheotomy
- D shot the V in the thigh and stomach
- V was given a tracheotomy
- V died from rare complications
- By the time he died the og wounds were no longer life threatening
- D was still liable for his death
14
Q
R v Jordan
A
- Allergy
- V was stabbed
- Was given antibiotic but suffered an allergic reaction
- One doc stopped the use of the anti-bitotic but the next day another doc ordered a large dose of it
- V died
- Docs actions were held to be an intervening act, breaking the chain of causation
- Stab wound was not the minimal cause
- medical intervention
15
Q
R v Roberts
A
- Sexual advances
- Girl jumped from car in order to avoid sexual advances
- Girl was injured as a result
- D was liable for injuries
- Victims own act
- Victims reaction was reasonable
16
Q
R v Williams
A
- Hitchhiker
- Hitch hiker jumped from Williams car and died from head injuries
- Driver had attempted to steal HH wallet
- Court stated that the victims act had to be foreseeable and in proportion to the threat
17
Q
R v Mohan
A
- D refused to stop when policeman signalled for him to do so
- He drove closer
- DIRECT INTENTION to scare him
18
Q
R v Woolin
A
- Pram
- D threw 3 month old son towards pram which was against a wall just over a metre away
- Bbay suffered head injuries when he hit the wall and died
- Court ruled that the consequence must be a virtual certainty and the D must realise that
- OBLIQUE INTENTION
19
Q
R v Matthews and Alleyne
A
- Bridge
- 2 D had pushed the V from a bridge over a deep wide river
- V drowned
- Jury had to be sure that the D acknowledged the virtual certainty of the victims death
20
Q
R v Cunningham
A
- Gas meter
- D tore a pre payment gas meter from the wall of an empty house in order to steal the money inside of it
- This caused gas to seep into the house next door where a woman was affected by it
- Cunningham was charged with an offence of maliciously adminstering a noxious thing, which has a mens rea of recklessness or intention to do so
- He was not held guilty as he did not realise the risk
21
Q
Pharmaceutical society of GB v Storkwain LTD
A
- Prescriptions
- The D, a pharmacist had supplied drugs on prescriptions but the prescriptions were later found to be forged.
- He had not acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently.
- he forgery was good enough to deceive the pharmacist
- Despite this, he was convicted of supplying drugs without a genuine prescription
- Act of strict liability - no requirement for mens rea
22
Q
Callow v Tillstone
A
- Butcher
- A butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was
- Vet assured him that it was so the butcher sold it
- it was unfit and the butcher was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale
- Even though the V was completely blameless in respect of the consequence, he or she can still be found guilty
23
Q
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah
A
- lottery
- D owned a newsagents business where they sold lottery tickets
- They had frequently reminded their staff not to sell to anyone below 16
- One of their staff sold a lottery ticket to a 13 year old, beleiving he was 16- no ID shown
- D was convicted despite their best efforts
- No due dilligence defence - SL
24
Q
Cundy V Le Cocq
A
- Liquor
- D was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person
- Person did not display any signs of already being drunk
- No defence of mistake
- Found guilty as it was a strict liability offence
25
Sweet v Parsley
- Farmhouse
- D lent farmhouse to students
- Police found cannabis at farmhouse and D 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 that she was not guilty
- Court presumed that the offence required mens rea
26
R v Latimer
- Pub
- The D aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub but struck a woman in the face
- He was guilty of a malicious wounding against the woman.
- Latimer had not meant to hit her but was found guilty.
- There was transferred malice
27
R v Mitchell
- Broken leg
- D pushed an old man
- The man fell back onto an elderly lady who fell and broke her leg
- The mens rea directed towards the old man was transferred to the ofence against the old woman
28
Pembiliton
- Broken window
- During a fight, the D threw a stone and broke a window, but he had intended to hit other people
- The intention to hit people could not be transferred to breaking the winow as there as a different mens rea for the two offences
29
Fagan V Metropolitan police commissioner
- Policeman’s foot
- D drove over policeman’s foot without realising he had done so, when told about it he initially refused to move his car
- Once he knew the car was on the police officers foot, he had the required mens rea for the offence
30
R v Church
- River
- D had a fight with a woman and knocked her unconscious; he then threw her body into a river, believing she was dead
- As the AR and MR must coincide at some point, the D was guilty
31
R v Vickers
- Sweet shop
- D broke into cellar of sweatshop, he hit the owner several times with his fist and kicked her once in the head; she died
- D was found guilty, although he did not intend to kill, he intended to cause GBH
32
R v Jewell
- D Shot V at point blank range with a shotgun and fled in his car
- He claimed that he lost control
- Temper anger or a reaction out of character, or even acting spectacularly out of character are not sufficient for LOC
33
R v Ward
- The D successfully pleaded LOC after killing the victim
- The V had physically attacked the D brother at a house party
- V headbutted D's brother
- D hit V with a pick axe handle
- D does not have to fear violence by the V. Fear of violence on another person, who must be identified, can amount to a qualifying trigger
34
R v Dawes
- Dreturned home to find his wife and V asleep on the sofa with their legs entwined
- There was an altercation and he stabbed and killed the V
- He could not rely o fear of violence where he had induced that violence
- Where the D has incited the violence, he or she cannot rely on the qualifying trigger of fear of violence
35
R v Zebedee
- The D lost control when his 94 year old father with alzheimers soiled himself
- He killed his father
- Things said or done is the anger trigger. It is an objective test, therefore the jury decide whether a reasonable person would lose control.
- The appeal court rules that neither condition was present in this case. He was convicted of murder
36
R v Bowyer
- The D and the V were both having a relationship with the same prostitute. The victim was also her pimp
- D wasn't aware she was a prostitute
- D went to V's house to burgle him
- V told D that his girl was a prostitute and she was his best earner
- D beat V tied him and left him, V eventually died
- D had no justifiable sense of being wronged as he was committing a burglary
- V had a right to do and say things
37
R v Clinton
- Both the D and his wife suffered from depression and required medication
- He lost control due to a number of factors and killed his wife
- She told him she was having sexual relations, taunted him about suicide websites he visited, told him she didn't want their children anymore
- Sexual infidelity can never be a qualifying trigger for LOC
38
Rv Rejmanski
- The D defence was that he suffered from PTSD as a result of his army service in afghanistan and that the deceased had provoked him with negative comments about his role in the army.
- The court stated that usually PTSD may be a relevant circumstance, there was insufficient evidence of that being the case
39
R v Christian
- The D fatally stabbed the 2 Vs during a fight in their shared accommodation
- Judge ruled that LOC should not be decided by the jury as his actions were so out of hand that it could not be justified.
40
R v Byrne
- The D was a sexual psychopath who strangled a young woman and then mutilated her body
- Bc of his condition, he was unable to control his perverted desires
- He was convited of murder but court of appeal quashed his conviction and subsituted a conviction for manslaughter
- Abnormality of mental functioning
41
R v Golds
D killed his partner, he confessed to the killing.
- The medical evidence was that he had an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a medical condition
- It was to be decided as to whether or not he was in a psychotic state at the time of the killing
- While an impairment must be more than merelytrivial to be substantial, it is not the case that any impairment that is more than trivial will suffice
42
R v Dowds
- The D and his girlfriend, the victim, were heavy binge drinkers
- In a drunken state, he stabbed her sixty times, killig her
- He was convicted of murder
- He appealed on the ground that his state of acute intoxication should have been left to the jury as providing a possible defence of DR
- His appeal was rejected and his conviction for murder upheld that voluntary intoxication cannot support the defence of DR
43
R v Dietschmann
- The D felt that the victim was disrespecting the memory of the D's aunt who had just died
- He killed the V by repeatedly kicking him and stamping on him
- D was drunk before killing
- It was agreed that D was suffering from an adjustment disorder in the form of depressed grief reaction to his aunt
- they were uncertain if this had substantially impaired his mental responsibility
- It was decided that if the D satisified the jury that his abnormality of mind substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts in doing the killing, then he could use the defence of DR
44
R v Kay
- The D had a long history of alcohol and drug abuse, and was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.
-
45
R v Tandy
- Miss Tandy had been an alcoholic for a number of years, usually drinking wine
- She told her mother that her second husband sexually abused her 11 year old daughter, she then strangled her daughter
- Judge told jury to decide if Tandy was suffering from an abnormality of mind as a direct result f her alcoholism or if she was just drunk
46
R v Wood
- The D, after drinking heavily, had gone to the victims flat and fell asleep.
47
