Criminal Law Cases

Question 1

Hill V Baxter W5P1

Answer 1

The defendant was accused of dangerous driving when he fell asleep at the wheel. It was questioned whether this amounted to automation (not being in control of your actions). It was held that the guilty act in this case was falling asleep whilst driving and so he had done this voluntarily and was liable. The QBD stressed that in order to be liable acts must be voluntary and drew a comparison to a driver who lost control die to a swarm of bees flying into their car. This would not be voluntary.

Question 2

R V Mitchell (1983) P112

Answer 2

D tried to push his way into the queue at the post office. A 72 year old man told him off for this. D punched the man for this and caused him to stubble back into a 89 year old lady. She was knocked over and injured and died of the injuries a few days later. D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. The man who had been punched and fell against the women was not liable for any criminal act.

Question 3

R V Gibbins and Proctor (1918) P114

Answer 3

The father of a 7 year old girl lived with a parter. The father had several children from an earlier marriage. He and his partner kept this child separate from the others and deliberately starved her to death. They were both convicted of murder. The father had a duty to feed her because he was her parent and the mistress was held to have undertaken to look after the children, including the girl, so she was also under the duty to feed the child. The omission or failure to feed her was deliberate with the intention of killing her or causing serious harm. In these circumstances they were guilty of murder. The failure to feed the the girl was enough for the AR of murder.

Question 4

R V Pittwood W5P1

Answer 4

Pittwood was a train guard who had the responsibility of lowering the gate of a railway when a train approached. On one occasion he failed to do so before leaving his post for lunch and a train struck a horse and cart, killing the driver of the train. He was liable for the death because he had failed to meet his contractual duty. It was held that someone who fails to meet the conditions of their role with the result that someone is harmed will be liable for that harm.

Question 5

R V Dytham (1979) P114

Answer 5

D was a police officer who was on duty. He saw a man (V) being thrown out of a nightclub about 30 yards from where he was standing. Following the throwing out, there was a fight in which three men kicked V to death. D took no steps to intervene or summon help. When the fight was over, D told a bystander that he was going off duty and left the scene. He was convicted of misconduct in a public office. Because D was a police officer, he was guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty.

Question 6

R V Stone and Dobinson (1977) P114

Answer 6

Stone’s elderly sister Fanny came to live with the defendants. Fanny was eccentric and often stayed in her room for several days. She also failed to eat. She eventually became bedridden and incapable of caring for herself. On at least one occasion Dobinson, Stone’s partner, helped to wash Fanny and occasionally prepared food for her. Fanny died from malnutrition, both defendants were found guilty of her manslaughter. As Fanny was Stone’s sister he owned a duty of care to her. Dobinson had undertaken some care of Fanny and so also owned her a duty of care. The duty was to either help her themselves or summon help from other sources. The failure to do either of these meant they were in breach of their duty.

Question 7

R V Miller (1983) P115

Answer 7

D was living in a squat. He fell asleep while smoking a cigarette. He woke to find his mattress on fire. He did not attempt to put out the fire or to summon help, but went in another room and went back to sleep. The house caught on fire and he was convicted of arson.
It was not setting the mattress on fire that made him guilty, it was the fact that he had failed to take reasonable steps when he discovered the mattress was on fire. This omission meant he had committed the AR for arson. The HOL pointed out he was only expected to take reasonable steps. When he initial woke he may have been able to put out the fire easily. However, if it was too dangerous for him to deal with, then his duty was to summon the fire brigade.

Question 8

R V White W5P1 and card on Chegg

Answer 8

The defendant is charged with murdering his mother. He slipped potassium cyanide (a poison) into her nightly drink of warm milk. She took a couple of small sips and went to sleep and never woke again. Toxicology reports shows show died from a heart attack.
He was not liable because of the but for test. She would have still died.

Question 9

R V Padgett (1983) P116

Answer 9

The defendant took his pregnant girlfriend from her home by force. He then held the girl hostage. Police called on him to surrender. D came out holding the girl in front of him and firing at the police. The police returned fire and the girl was killed by police bullets. D was convicted of man slaughter.

Question 10

R V Smith (1959) P118

Answer 10

Two soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung by the other. The victim was carried to the medical centre by other soldiers, but he was dropped on the way. At the medical centre the staff gave him artificial respiration by pressing on his chest. This made the injury worse and he died. The poor treatment probably affected his chances of survival by as much as 75%. However, the original attacker was still guilty of his murder.

Question 11

R V Jordan (1956) P118

Answer 11

The victim had been stabbed in the stomach had his wounds had been healing well. He was given an antibiotic but suffered an allergic reaction to it. One doctor stopped the use of the antibiotic, but another doctor ordered that a large dose of it be given. The victim died from the allergic reaction to the drug. In this case the actions of the doctor were held to be an intervening act which caused the death. The defendant was not guilty of murder.

Question 12

Mohan W5P1

Answer 12

Tells us that intention is achieving a desired consequence. In this case the defendant drove his car at a police officer in order to get him to move but was charged with attempting to harm him. He was acquitted as he did not have the intention to cause harm.

Question 13

Cunningham

Answer 13

Cunningham ripped a gas meter off the wall of his neighbours house hoping to access the money inside it, this tore the connecting pipe resulting in a gas leak, which poisoned his neighbour. He was found not liable for this harm as it wasn’t possible to prove that he knew the risk of this happening regardless how obvious it may seem to everyone else. This case confirmed that recklessness is a subjective test.

Question 14

Adomako (1994)

Answer 14

Think it’s about analthetc but not sure.

Question 15

R V Latimer (1886) P132

Answer 15

D aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub because that man had attacked him. The belt bounced off the man and struck a women in the face. D was guilty of the assault against the women although he had not meant for it to hit her

Question 16

R V Pembliton P132

Answer 16

When the MR is for a completely different type of offence, then the defendant may not be guilty. The defendant threw a stone intending to hit a man he was fighting. The stone hit and broke a window. The intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window.

Question 17

R V Thabo Meli (1954) P133

Answer 17

Ds attacked a man and believed they had killed him. They then pushed his body over a low cliff. The man in fact had survived the attack but died of exposure when he was unconscious at the bottom of the cliff. It was held that Ds were guilty of murder.

Question 18

R V Church (1965)

Answer 18

D had a fight with a women and knocked her out. He tried unsuccessfully for about half an hour to bring her round. He thought she was dead and he put her in the river. She drowned, his conviction for manslaughter was upheld.

Question 19

Fagan V MPC (1986) P133 and Chegg

Answer 19

A policeman was directing the defendant to park his car. The defendant accidentally ran over the policeman’s foot and refused to move.
The outcome was driving on the policeman’s and staying there was part of one continuous act. So as long as the defendant developed the MR at some point while the act was continuing, then he could be guilty.

Question 20

R V Wilson Chegg

Answer 20

The defendant is chasing the victim through some woods. He calls to the second defendant ‘get the knives’. The defendant becomes afraid that they will be harmed.
Actus Reus - the chasing and the words.
Men’s rea - to scare the victim.

Question 21

Logdon V DDP (1976) Chegg

Answer 21

An imitation gun was pointed at a women in jest. The defendant then told her it wasn’t real, but she had been petrified. The outcome of the case was that assault had been committed as the victim had apprehended unlawful personal violence.

Question 22

R V Logdon Chegg

Answer 22

The defendant had an argument with the victim, during the argument he opened a drawer in his desk and showed her a gun.
She was afraid that she would be harmed
Actus Reus - opening the draw.
Men’s rea - wanting to frighten the girl by showing the gun.

Question 23

R V Ireland Chegg

Answer 23

The defendant made a series of silent telephone calls over a three month period to three separate women. He was convicted for assault. The point of law from this case is silent phone calls can amount to assault and psychiatric injury can amount to bodily harm.
AR - the defendant caused V to fear immediate unlawful force.
AR - V suffered fear which interfered with their health or comfort.
MR - the defendant intended v to fear immediate unlawful harm.

Question 24

Smith V CCWP (1983) P136

Answer 24

D broke into a garden and looked through V’s bedroom window on the ground floor at 11pm one evening. V was terrified and thought D was about to enter the room. Although D was outside the house and no attack could be made at that immediate moment, the court held that V was frightened by his conduct. The basis of this fear is she did not know what he was going to do next, but that it was likely to be of a violent nature. Fear of what he might do next was sufficiently immediate for the purpose of the offence

Question 25

Tuberville V Savage (1669) Chegg

Answer 25

The defendant put his hand on his sword and said ‘if it wasn’t assize time (when judges were in town for cases) I would not take such language from you.’ This was not assault as the words suggested no violence would take place.

Question 26

R V Thomas Chegg

Answer 26

The defendant was a caretaker in a school, he was caught touching the hem of a girls skirt.
This held to be Battery. He wasn’t guilty of indecent assault.

Question 27

R V Haystead Chegg

Answer 27

The defendant punched his girlfriend whilst she was holding their baby. She dropped the baby and it hit it’s head. It was indirect battery on the baby as his actions lead to the baby being harmed.
Battery to the baby because of recklessness when he punched her.

Question 28

R V Miller Chegg

Answer 28

The defendant had signed a petition for divorce. He had intercourse with her against her will. He had thrown her to the ground on three occasions, leading to her being in a hysterical and nervous condition. This resulted in ABH. He was not liable of rape because marital consent to intercourse. The man could not use force however to exercise his rights and her nervous condition amounted to ABH. Point of law, can’t use force to excercise use your legal right.

Question 29

DDP V Smith (2006) P141

Answer 29

The defendant had an argument with his girlfriend. He cut off her ponytail and some hair from the top of her head without her consent. The Divisional Court held that cutting off a substantial amount of hair could be ABH

Question 30

R V Roberts (1971) P141

Answer 30

D who was driving the car made advances to the girl in the passenger seat and tried to take her coat off. She feared he was going to commit a more serious assault and jumped from the car when it was moving at about 30 miles an hour. As a result she was slightly injured. He was guilty of assault occasioning ABH even though he had not intended any injury or realised there was a risk of injury. He had intended to apply unlawful force when he touched her as he tried to take her coat off. This satisfied the MR for a common assault and so he was guilty of an offence.

Question 31

R V Savage (1991) P141

Answer 31

D threw bear over another women in a pub. In doing this the glass slipped from D’s hand and V’s hand was cut by the glass. D said she only intended to throw bear over the women. D had not intended her to be injured, nor had she realised there was a risk of injury. The fact that she had the intention to throw the bear over the other women meant she had the intention to apply unlawful force and this was sufficient for the MR of the S.47 offence.

Question 32

R V Brown and Stratton Chegg

Answer 32

The defendant when to someone’s house and attacked them. They sustained a broken nose and loose three teeth.
Lots of small injuries can amount for the Actus Reus for GBH.
Was 18 but went to the court of appeal and went to 20 because of their intoxication.

Question 33

Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Answer 33

This is on page 123 look at this with Moleney (1985)

Question 34

R V Dica (2004) P143

Answer 34

The defendant had unprotected sex with two women without telling them he was HIV positive. Both women became infected as a result. No doubt that infecting someone with HIV was inflicting GBH.

Question 35

R V Eisenhower Chegg

Answer 35

The victim was shot in the eye. This caused severe bruising. As this was internal it was not a wound.
A wound is an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin and should be external.
Does not have to be serious but just a cut to all the layers of skin.

Question 36

R V Taylor (2009) P144

Answer 36

An intention to wound was not sufficient for the MR of S.18

Question 37

R V Mowatt Chegg

Answer 37

The defendant is having an argument with the victim. The defendant punches the victim in the face several times. Causing them injuries and knocking them unconscious.
Actus Reus - knocking someone unconscious is serious.
Men’s rea - they hit them several times so it was intentional.
S.18.