Criminal law - Case studies Flashcards
Woolmington v DPP (1935)
- F: Thomas Woolmington was accused of murdering his wife. He claimed that he accidentally shot her while trying to show her a gun.
LP: House of Lords ruled that
prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt. beyond reasonable doubt.
-
AR for involuntary cases. For R v Larsonneur 1933
- Deported from uk to irland and deported from Ireland back to uk But not voluntary. Arrested and charged with an alien to whom leave to land
in the UK had been refused’
AR for voluntary case for R v Mitchell, 1983
- D was in a post office when he got into an argument with an elderly man. In his frustration, D pushed the elderly man, causing him to fall into an elderly woman standing behind him. The woman fell, and as a result of the fall, she later died from her injuries.
The duty of doctors of the case Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) (exceptions of omission)
was a case where doctors wanted to stop life support for Tony Bland, who was in a coma and couldn’t recover. The court said it was okay to stop the treatment because it wasn’t helping him and was just keeping him alive without any chance of recovery.
Contractual duty . Case is R v Adomako (1994) (exceptions of omission)
an anaesthetist, was supervising an operation where the patient suffered a cardiac arrest. Dr. Adomako failed to notice that the oxygen tube had become disconnected during the surgery. As a result, the patient’s brain was deprived of oxygen, leading to death.
LP: His failure to adequately perform his duties satisfied the actus reus of gross
negligence manslaughter because he was under a contractual duty to act.
Relationship duty, R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) (exceptions of omission)
Gibbins and his partner Proctor were responsible for the care of Gibbins’ daughter, who was living with them. The daughter, who was about 7 years old, was starved to death by the couple. They deliberately withheld food and care from her, causing her death.
LP: The defendants were guilty of murder by omission, the father was under a duty to act
based upon the familial relationship. Proctor was also acting as a parent as in reality
she was undertaking the role of the child’s mother.
Voluntary duty, R v Instan (1893). (exception of omission)
Instan lived with her aunt, who was seriously ill and unable to care for herself. The aunt relied on Instan for help. Despite the aunt’s condition worsening, Instan failed to call for medical help or provide necessary care, and the aunt eventually died.
LP: D was in a duty to act while assuming responsibility by living in her aunt house . and financially support her. And was the only one aware of the conditions. It also formed AR of manslaughter.
(exceptions of omission) , D created a dangerous situation. R v Evans (2009).
The victim, a heroin addict was given heroin by her sister and mother (the defendants), then self- injected the heroin whilst residing in her mother’s house. victim was suffering from an overdose, but the defendants chose not to seek medical assistance for fear of
discovery of the drugs. victim had died and were both
prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter.
LP: The mother was under a duty to act as the victim’s parent, however, the sister owed a duty of care to her sister. sister was under a duty to take reasonable steps for the safety of the victim.
Exceptions to the omission, official position duty. R v Dytham (1979)
The defendant (a police officer), witnessed the victim being beaten and kicked to death by a bouncer. The defendant failed to intervene or request help and left the scene as
his shift was due to end.
The defendant was charged with misconduct in a public office.
LP: The defendant was under a public duty to act due to his official position. The crime of misconduct in a public office can be committed via an omission.
Exceptions to the omission By combination of factors. R v Willoughby (2005)
fire begun and destroyed the
premises and killed the victim. It was alleged that the defendant and victim ha started the fire at the premises deliberately. defendant was in debt with two mortgages on the property. prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter.
LP: The defendant owed a duty of care to the victim.
Factual causation, R v White (1910).
D attempted to poison his mother with cyanide to inherit her money. He put the poison in her drink, but she died of a heart attack before she could drink it. White was charged with murder.
LP: not guilty of murder. not directly cause his mother’s death.
Legal causation, R v Kimsey (1996). for “but for test”
D was with another driver. During the chase, the other driver lost control of his car and crashed, leading to his death. Kimsey was charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
LP: was guilty because her driving was a substantial cause of the other driver’s death.
Legal causation, R v blaue (1975). The thin skull rule : must take v as you found them.
D stabbed a woman, and she was seriously injured. The woman was a Jehovah’s Witness and refused a blood transfusion that could have saved her life because of her religious beliefs. She later died from the injuries. D was charged with manslaughter.
LP: D was responsible for the woman’s death, even though her refusal of the blood transfusion contributed to it. The court applied the “take your victim as you find him” rule — thin skull rule.
Mens rea: motive, R v Inglis (2011)
d was convicted of murder after she helped her son, who was severely injured and suffering, to end his life. He had asked her to help him die, as he had been left paralyzed and in constant pain. Inglis provided him with a lethal dose of heroin, and he died as a result. D was convicted with both attempted murder and murder. She appealed against her conviction.
LP: The law of murder does not distinguish between defendants who intend to kill out of love or intend to kill out of malice.
Intention: Indirect intention, R v Woollin (1998)
d threw his 3-month-old baby onto a hard surface during a fit of anger, causing the baby to suffer fatal injuries. Woollin was charged with murder, but he argued that he did not intend to kill the child, only to cause some harm.
LP: d could be found guilty of murder if the death was a “substantial risk” from his actions and that he knew the likely consequences of throwing the baby.
jury can infer intent if they find that the defendant’s actions were virtually certain to cause the result even if D didn’t directly intend it.
R v Woollin: two-part test
1 Was the outcome (the actus reus / criminal
consequence) a virtually certain consequence of the
defendant’s actions?
This is an objective test, it means the jury should consider as
a matter of fact, was the actus reus a virtually certain
consequence of the defendant’s actions.
2 Did the defendant realise this?
This question introduces a subjective element into the test, in
order to prove that a defendant indirectly intended a
consequence it must be proved that the defendant themselves
actually foresaw the criminal consequence as a virtually
certainty.
Recklessness, R v Cunningham (1957)
D ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal money from it. The gas leak that resulted from his actions poisoned his future mother-in-law, causing her to become seriously ill. D was charged with maliciously administering a noxious substance under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
LP: recklessness could be a form of mens rea for the offense. D was convicted, but the court clarified that to be reckless, a person must foresee the risk of harm and unjustifiably ignore it.
objective recklessness, Elliot v C (1983)
A 14 year old girl with learning
difficulties set fire to a shed. She did not have the foresight to predict her actions would cause the outcome. She was found guilty as ordinary adults would have realised the risk.
Transferred Malice, R v Gnango (2011).
1 Where the defendant commits the intended offence against an unintended victim, with no harm
coming to the intended victim
women was shot in the
head and killed. Two gunmen, the defendant and a rival unknown man referred to as ‘Bandana Man’ had been exchanging fire at each other across the carpark and she had been shot by mistake. Evidence showed that it was actually a shot from ‘Bandana Man’ that killed the victim, D was also guilty of causing her death and was convicted of murder.
LP: D was clearly guilty of murder under operation of the principle of transferred malice, his malice of intention to kill moved from his intended victim (Bandana Man) to the unintended victim (the
victim), whose death he actually caused.
Transferred Malice, case Pembliton
The defendant threw some stones into a crowd of people. He wanted to disperse the crowd. A stone hit and smashed a window. He was convicted of criminal damage and appealed.
LP: His mens rea for an offence against the person could not be transferred to a property offence as they are entirely different offences.
Transferred Malice, R v Latimer (1886)
The defendant got into a fight in a pub with another man. He took off his belt and hit the man with the belt. The belt ricocheted off and hit a woman in the face.
o: The defendant was liable for the injuries inflicted on the woman despite the fact that he did not intend to harm her. The mens rea he had to cause harm to the man was transferred to the woman.
Transferred Malice, R v Mitchell (1983)
2 Where an additional victim is harmed by the actions of the defendant.
The defendant pushed an elderly gentleman in a post office queue, the elderly gentlemen (his intended victim) fell onto an elderly woman (his unintended victim), who subsequently died as
a consequence of her injuries.
defendant was prosecuted for the offence of unlawful act
manslaughter in relation to the elderly woman (his unintended victim).
LP: The mens rea was transferred from his intended victim to the additional victim, making him guilty of an offence against the unintended additional victim.
Strict Liability, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986)
Storkwain Ltd, a pharmacy, was found to have sold prescription-only drugs without a valid prescription. The drugs were prescribed using forged prescriptions. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain brought a case against the pharmacy, arguing that the company had violated regulations about selling prescription drugs.
LP: The pharmacists had supplied the drugs without a genuine prescription and this was enough to make him guilty of the offence.
Strict Liability: no ‘mistake’, Callow v Tillstone (1900)
D butcher, sold meat to a customer. The meat had been inspected by a veterinarian, but it was later found to be unfit for consumption. Despite D having taken all reasonable precautions, he was still charged under a law that made it illegal to sell unfit meat.
LP: This case confirmed the principle of strict liability in certain offenses. The law did not require proof of mens rea
