Criminal Law Cases

Question 1

Kay V Butterworth 1945

Answer 1

• Fell asleep driving, crash
• He had continued to drive whilst feeling sleepy which was deemed a voluntary act
• L

Question 2

R V Cogdon 1951

Answer 2

• accidentally killed daughter, sleepwalking, bizarre dreams
• Involuntary act
• NL

Question 3

R V Pittwood 1902

Answer 3

• Railway crossing opener left crossing open, horse and carriage driver
• There was a duty to act and protect public, duty arising from contract
• L

Question 4

Children and young persons act

Answer 4

-1933
- Makes it an offence to fail to provide medical care
- omission

Question 5

Road Traffic Act

Answer 5

-1988
- Makes failure to wear a seatbelt illegal
- Omission

Question 6

R V Miller 1983

Answer 6

• D matress, lighted cigarette, fire, moved rooms
• acknowledged fire and went back to sleep, duty arising from conduct
• L

Question 7

R V Stone and Dobinson 1977

Answer 7

• bedridden, visit, no assist or summon help
• Assumed duty of care
• L

Question 8

R V Dytham

Answer 8

• police, citizen kicked to death
• Failed to perform public duty, breach duty of care
• L

Question 9

R V White

Answer 9

• Potassium cyanide, mums drink, attempt to murder, heart attack
• Not his act that caused her death - attempted murder
• L

Question 10

R V smith

Answer 10

• Fight, soldiers, stabbed, dropped on route MO, not treated to full extent, wound pierced lung
• Original injury still operative cause of death
• L

Question 11

R V Cheshire

Answer 11

• Shot in leg, tracheotomy
• but for him being shot in the leg, he wouldn’t have needed a tracheotomy and died
• L

Question 12

R V Pagett

Answer 12

• Gf shield, fire at police, gf shot
• Reasonably foreseeable police would shoot back and hit the girl
• L

Question 13

R V Corbett

Answer 13

• drinking, fight, run, gutter, car
• within forseeability - The victims conduct will break chain of causation if it’s so daft its unforseeable
• G

Question 14

R V Muhammed

Answer 14

100mph, 3 year old, tyre blew out
It was forseeable tyre could give considering speed and age of car
G

Question 15

R V Blaue

Answer 15

Stabbing, Jehovah’s Witness, refuse blood transfusion
Doesn’t break chain of causation, take victim as you find them
L

Question 16

R V Gray

Answer 16

Killed 11yo son with cancer, pleaded diminished responsibility
Motive may have been good but acts reus and mens réa were established
L, many slaughter

Question 17

R v Woolin

Answer 17

Hedrick test
Did the defendant appreciate that death of GBH was a virtual certain consequence of actions

Question 18

R v Matthews and Alleyne

Answer 18

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

Question 19

R v Latimer

Answer 19

Aimed flow belt at someone belt recoiled off person and hit victim
Transferred malice
Liable

Question 20

R v Mitchell

Answer 20

Used elderly man, fell on elderly woman, died from injuries
Transferred malice, mens rea transferred
Liable

Question 21

Fagan v met police commissioner

Answer 21

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

Question 22

R v church

Answer 22

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

Question 23

R v Cunningham

Answer 23

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

Question 24

B v DPP

Answer 24

15 year old boy, 13 year old girl ‘shiner’
Strict liability - no defence available - overruled, could plead a mistake

Question 25

What should be assumed in strict liability

Answer 25

Must start from established common law, mens rea essential ingredient

Question 26

Sweet v parsley

Answer 26

Drug taking on property - not aware
No strict liability-mens rea needed and she didn’t know

Question 27

Gammon (HongKong) lt v A-G of Hong Kong

Answer 27

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

Question 28

PWR v DPP

Answer 28

Held terrorist flag during protest
Strict liability, mental intention not needed

Question 29

Strict liability

Answer 29

No need for mens rea

Question 30

Justification for strict liability offences

Answer 30

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