Criminal Law Cases

Question 1

Actus Reus Case: R v Mitchell

Answer 1

Appellant tried to jump queue, an elderly man challenged him, appellant hit old man who fell back and injured an old lady, who later died.
Convicted of manslaughter and appealed that act was not directed at woman.

Held: Conviction upheld, no requirement that unlawful act be directed at victim.

Question 2

Operating Cause Case: R v Smith

Answer 2

D got in a fight and stabbed another soldier. They were taken to medics but dropped twice on route.
Treatment was given wrong and failed to diagnose a lung puncture.

D convicted of murder and appealed that if given correct treatment he would have survived.

Held: Stab wound was operating cause of death, conviction upheld.

Question 3

Substantial Cause Case: R v Jordan

Answer 3

D stabbed victim, they went to hospital and given antibiotics after showing allergic reaction to them. Also given excessive amounts of intravenous liquids. He died of pneumonia after 8 days.

Held: Died of medical treatment, not stab wounds. D not liable.

Question 4

Direct Intent Case: R v Mohan

Answer 4

D driving quick and told to stop by police, car almost hit policeman and D charged with attempted ABH.

Judge directed that D had to have been at least reckless that ABH would be caused.

Held: Allowed appeal against D’s conviction since it has to be proved D intended the crime regardless of normal mens rea rules.

Question 5

Oblique Intent Case: R v Woollin

Answer 5

Appellant threw baby onto hard surface, fractured skull and died.

Jury convicted murder and rejected provocation.
D appealed on grounds that in referring to ‘substantial risk’ the judge had widen the definition of murder and should have referred to virtual certainty (it was rejected).

Held: Conviction changed to manslaughter, a material misdirection expanded the mens rea of murder so that conviction was unsafe.

Question 6

Subjective Recklessness: R v Cunningham

Answer 6

Appellant ripped gas meter from wall to steal money, gas escaped and seeped through into a neighbouring property poisoning future mother in law.

Charged under s 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
Trial judge directed jury that malicious meant wicked.

Held: Malicious means actual intention to do the harm, or, recklessness as to whether harm should occur or not.

Question 7

Transferred Malice Case: R v Latimer

Answer 7

D fought a man in a pub, he took off his belt and hit the man, it ricocheted off and hit a woman in the face.

Held: D liable for injuries despite there was no intention, the mens rea to the man was transferred to her.

Question 8

Strict Liability Case: R v Prince

Answer 8

Appellant took unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of fathers possession, he knew she was in possession of father but believed she was 18.

Held: Conviction upheld, his reasonable belief was no defence.

Question 9

Mens Rea Of Murder Case: DPP v Smith

Answer 9

Policeman tried to stop D driving off with stolen goods by jumping on car bonnet, D drove with speed and zigzagged to get them off.

‘Grievous means no more and no less than really serious.

Question 10

Loss Of Control Case: R v Clinton

Answer 10

R killed ex wife following taunts, revelations about affairs and mental illness.

Sexual infidelity can add to a defence where there exists other qualifying triggers.

Question 11

Diminished Responsibility Case: R v Golds

Answer 11

D had a history of mental disorder, he killed his partner by inflicting 22 stab wounds after an argument.

Held: Court should leave interpretation of the word ‘substantial’ to the jury, but can advise that substantial means big or large.

Question 12

Fault Case: Smedleys v Breed

Answer 12

4 tins out of 3.5 million included caterpillars. Company convicted of selling food not of the substance demanded by the purchaser.’contended that the presence of the caterpillar in the tin was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation and that they therefore had a defence.

Held: In order for a defence, they needed to show that presence of extraneous matter was a consequence of food preparation and could not have been avoided.

Question 13

Duress Case: Hasan

Answer 13

Associated with gang and relied on defence of duress, pleading that he was blackmailed into committing burglary to prevent his family from being harmed.

Held: Duress unavailable due to voluntary gang association, should have foreseen risk.

Question 14

Transferred Malice Case: Pembilton

Answer 14

D threw stones into a crowd he wanted to disperse, he smashed a window.

Conviction of criminal damage was quashed, mens rea for an offence against people couldn’t be transferred to property offences.

Question 15

GNM Case: Adomako

Answer 15

During operation, oxygen pipe disconnected and patient died. Anaesthetist appellant failed to notice or respond to obvious signs of disconnection

Held: Conviction for GNM upheld

Question 16

Assault Case: R v Lamb

Answer 16

Two boys playing with a revolver and they didn’t think the gun would fire. One pointed it at the other and shot, killing him. Charged with unlawful act manslaughter.

Held: No unlawful act as no assault had been committed as victim didn’t believe gun would go off therefore he did not apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence.

Question 17

Battery Case: R v Ireland

Answer 17

D made a series of silent telephone calls over 3 months to 3 different women.
Convicted of s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
He appealed saying silence cannot amount to assault and psychiatric injury is not bodily harm.

Held: Conviction upheld, silence can amount to these things.

Question 18

s20 Wounding and GBH case: C v Eisenhower

Answer 18

Pellets from D’s airgun caused bruising and rupturing of internal blood vessels of V’s eye, but there is no breaking of skin.

Held: Not guilty, there needs to be a breaking of the skin.

Question 19

Theft Appropriation Case: Corcoran v Anderton

Answer 19

Two D knocked down a woman, grabbing handbag, she didn’t let go, they ran off empty handed.

Held: Appropriation had taken place with the relevant dishonest intent to permanently deprive. Irrelevant they left empty, touching property amounts to appropriation.

Question 20

Actus Reus of Theft Case: R v Morris

Answer 20

Switching price labels in supermarket, paying lower price for items.

Held: No appropriation of all rights of owner, appropriation happened when interference with rights of owner (labels) not at point of taking goods.

Question 21

Mens Rea of Theft Case: R v Lloyd

Answer 21

D worked in a cinema and took films so that copies could be made by some associates.

Held: Not theft, films returned in original state and lost no practical value.

Question 22

Mens Rea of Robbery Case: Corcoran v Anderton

Answer 22

D grabbed V’s handbag and instantly dropped it, leaving with nothing.

Held: Convicted of robbery as s1(1) of Theft Act 1968 was completed when he grabbed the bag.

Question 23

Mens Rea of Attempt Case: R v Whybrow

Answer 23

D wired up a soap dish next to the bath and gave his wife an electric shock. Charged with attempted murder. Judge directed jury that mens rea for attempted murder is same for murder.

Held: Appeal dismissed, judge misdirected jury but verdict was still safe.

Question 24

Insanity Case: R v Clarke

Answer 24

Absent-mindedly misplaced 2 jars and butter into her cart while shopping, she could not recall this.
Medical evidence stated she had depression and was diabetic. She pleaded guilty, appealing judges insanity finding.

Held: Short periods of AM does not amount to a defect of reason.

Question 25

Automatism Case: A-G Ref

Answer 25

Truck driver crashed into cars parked on the hard shoulder and killed 2 people. Raised defence of non-insane automatism.

Held: There must be a total loss of control, so it was dismissed since there was some control.

Question 26

Voluntary Intoxication Case: DPP v Majewski

Answer 26

D took a lot of drugs over 48 hours, then also drank a lot of alcohol. Landlord went to break up a fight D was in, D attacked him.

Claimed he had no recollection due to his intoxication. Found guilty, appealed that he did not have mens rea.

Held: Conviction upheld, crime was of basic intent and intoxication could not be relied on as a defence.

Question 27

Involuntary Intoxication Case: R v Kingston

Answer 27

K, a known paedophile, drank a drugged coffee and abused a boy as an attempt by others to blackmail K.

Held: Despite involuntary intoxication, K knew what he was doing, he couldn’t stop himself.

Question 28

Self Defence Case: R v Martin (2002)

Answer 28

Two people broke into his farm, he shot both and killed one. He plead self defence and his personality order be taken into account.

Held: Personality order could not be considered for reasonable force, it did amount to abnormality of the mind, impairing his mental responsibility. Conviction quashed.

Question 29

Consent Case: R v Tabassum

Answer 29

Convicted on 3 counts of indecent assault. He said he worked for a hospital (he was actually a lecturer in IT) and was compiling breast cancer data, by physically examining the women.They only consented because they believed he was a medical professional.

Held: There was no true consent, only consent to nature of the act, not the quality.

Question 30

Statutory Interpretation Case: Pepper v Hart

Answer 30

HoL decide whether a teacher at private school pay tax on the perk he received in the form of reduced school fees.
Teacher sought to rely on statement made in Hansard meaning he wouldn’t pay tax.

Held: HoL took a purposive approach holding that Hansard may be referred to. Teacher not required to pay tax.

Question 31

Actus reus + Mens Rea Case: Fagan v MPC

Answer 31

D accidentally drove onto policeman’s foot, policeman shouted to get off, D refused to move.
D argued he did not have the mens rea at the time since it was accidental and after he formed mens rea he had no actus reus since he did nothing.

Held: Driving on foot and remaining was part of a continuous act.

Question 32

Voluntary Intoxication Case: R v Lipman

Answer 32

Appellant took LSD and hallucinated he was being attacked by snakes and descending to centre of earth. He killed a girl by cramming bed sheets in mouth.

Held: Intoxication could demonstrate he lacked mens rea for murder as murder is crime of specific intent, couldn’t be used for manslaughter as its basic intent.

Question 33

S1(1) criminal attempts act 1981

Answer 33

if they do an act, which is more than preparatory to the commission of the offence, with the intention of committing an offence.