criminal law cases Flashcards
Hill v Baxter (1958)
Defendant ignored a road sign and claimed he didnt see it as he was an automaton
Voluntary nature of actus reus
If a defendant has no control over their actions they cannot be guilty
Here he was convicted as there was no real evidence
R v Larssoneur (1933)
Woman was deported from Ireland back to UK where she was considered an “alien of whom refused to leave the UK”
State of affairs cases
Rare instances where a defendant is convicted even when their actions weren’t voluntary
R v Pittwood(1902)
defendant was guilty of manslaughter because he had a contractual duty to ensure the gates were closed
An omission cannot make a person guilty unless a contractual duty to act exists
R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
a childs father and partner failed to feed their child so it died,
a duty exists because of a relationship between the victim and accused
their omission to act formed the actus reus
R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)
stones elderly sister was in stones care so when she was ill and died, stone and his wife were convicted or manslaughter
A duty toward the victim has been taken on voluntarily by the accused
R v Dytham (1979)
police officer witnessed an attack but made no effort to help
a duty to act arises as a consequence of the accused official position
R v Miller (1983)
accused noticed a fire, did nothing about it and instead moved to a different room, he was guilty of arson
a duty toward the victim arises because the defendant set in motion a chain of events
R v Pagett (1983)
the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield so she died
factual cause
a victim cannot be guilty if the consequences would not have happened but for the defendants conduct
R v Blaue (1975)
woman was stabbed and needed a transfusion but refused as her religion didn’t allow one
Thin skull rule
despite the fact that the woman’s religious belief made her wound fatal the defendant was still guilty because he had to take her as he found her
R v Williams (1992)
hitch-hiker jumped from Williams car and died, however he jumped because Williams attempted to reach for his wallet
victims own act
victims act was unreasonable and so chain of causation was broken
R v Mohan (1975)
defendant drove toward an officer and refused to stop when asked to
mens rea of a crime
Showed direct intention to scare or injure the policeman
R v Cunningham (1957)
defendant ripped a gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal from it, this caused a gas leak
recklesness
has to be proved the defendant realised the risk and still took it
R Woollin (1998)
Threw his baby at his pram which was near a wall, the baby hit the wall and died
there was no direct intention however, the harm caused by his action was a virtual certainty
Latimer (1886)
the defendant aimed the belt at a man but it instead hit a woman in the face
Transferred malice
defendant can still be guilty even if his crime didnt affect the intended person
Pembliton (1874)
Defendant threw a stone intending to hit some people but instead broke a window.
Transferred malice doesnt apply here as breaking the window was criminal damage, there was different mens rea for the two offences.
