Criminal Law Cases Flashcards
Kay V Butterworth 1945
- Fell asleep driving, crash
- He had continued to drive whilst feeling sleepy which was deemed a voluntary act
- L
R V Cogdon 1951
- accidentally killed daughter, sleepwalking, bizarre dreams
- Involuntary act
- NL
R V Pittwood 1902
- Railway crossing opener left crossing open, horse and carriage driver
- There was a duty to act and protect public, duty arising from contract
- L
Children and young persons act
-1933
- Makes it an offence to fail to provide medical care
- omission
Road Traffic Act
-1988
- Makes failure to wear a seatbelt illegal
- Omission
R V Miller 1983
- D matress, lighted cigarette, fire, moved rooms
- acknowledged fire and went back to sleep, duty arising from conduct
- L
R V Stone and Dobinson 1977
- bedridden, visit, no assist or summon help
- Assumed duty of care
- L
R V Dytham
- police, citizen kicked to death
- Failed to perform public duty, breach duty of care
- L
R V White
- Potassium cyanide, mums drink, attempt to murder, heart attack
- Not his act that caused her death - attempted murder
- L
R V smith
- Fight, soldiers, stabbed, dropped on route MO, not treated to full extent, wound pierced lung
- Original injury still operative cause of death
- L
R V Cheshire
- Shot in leg, tracheotomy
- but for him being shot in the leg, he wouldn’t have needed a tracheotomy and died
- L
R V Pagett
- Gf shield, fire at police, gf shot
- Reasonably foreseeable police would shoot back and hit the girl
- L
R V Corbett
- drinking, fight, run, gutter, car
- within forseeability - The victims conduct will break chain of causation if it’s so daft its unforseeable
- G
R V Muhammed
100mph, 3 year old, tyre blew out
It was forseeable tyre could give considering speed and age of car
G
R V Blaue
Stabbing, Jehovah’s Witness, refuse blood transfusion
Doesn’t break chain of causation, take victim as you find them
L
R V Gray
Killed 11yo son with cancer, pleaded diminished responsibility
Motive may have been good but acts reus and mens réa were established
L, many slaughter
R v Woolin
Hedrick test
Did the defendant appreciate that death of GBH was a virtual certain consequence of actions
R v Matthews and Alleyne
Test was an evidential test which can only be used by the jury to assist them when deciding wether to infer intention
NB: only defence study as AS where intention can be inferred s.18 wounding or GBH - only used for murder or GBH
R v Latimer
Aimed flow belt at someone belt recoiled off person and hit victim
Transferred malice
Liable
R v Mitchell
Used elderly man, fell on elderly woman, died from injuries
Transferred malice, mens rea transferred
Liable
Fagan v met police commissioner
Told move closure curb, accident ran over constables foot, turned off ignition and didn’t move
Coincidence of actual reus and mens rea, gained mens Rea after act
R v church
Gone to van with woman for sexual purposes, she mocked him, he hit her, thought killed her, threw her in river
Mens Rea continued even after he thought she was dead
Liable
R v Cunningham
Broke gas meter to steal money, gas seeped into house next door, mother in law became so ill her life endangered
Defined recklessness as foreseeing that kind of harm than occurred might occur and going ahead anyway
B v DPP
15 year old boy, 13 year old girl ‘shiner’
Strict liability - no defence available - overruled, could plead a mistake
What should be assumed in strict liability
Must start from established common law, mens rea essential ingredient
Sweet v parsley
Drug taking on property - not aware
No strict liability-mens rea needed and she didn’t know
Gammon (HongKong) lt v A-G of Hong Kong
Building regulations
Privy council held relevant regulations created offences of strict liability and appellants were guilty of
1) presume mr
2) especially presume when ‘truly criminal’
3) can be rebuted if statute says
4) can be rebuted for public safety
PWR v DPP
Held terrorist flag during protest
Strict liability, mental intention not needed
Strict liability
No need for mens rea
Justification for strict liability offences
Easier to prove
Takes less time in court
Encourages compliance with law
Prevents defences being raised as an excuse
Makes regulation straightforward
Protects the public
