Criminal Law Cases Flashcards
Woolmington v DPP [1935]
- D charged with murder of his wife
- HoL ruled that it was for the prosecution to prove that D intended to kill his wife
R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
- Father and co-habitant starved their child
- Found guilty of murder through omission
- Special relationship/duty of care for father
- Proctor, despite not being the child’s mother, received money for food from Gibbins, therefore, close relationship
R v Stone and Dobinson [1977]
- Two D’s took in Stone’s sister, Fanny
- Fanny’s condition deteriorated, bedridden, no medical help summoned, died in squalor
- Ruled that D’s had assumed a duty of care which they failed to provide
R v Pittwood (1902)
- D a level crossing keeper, negligently left open the crossing gate
- Person killed by the train
- D had a contractual duty to shut the gate, convicted
R v Miller [1983]
- D woke up to find his cigarette was burning the mattress
- Got up and moved to another room
- The house caught fire
- Having created a dangerous situation, was under a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent further damage
R v Naughton (2001)
- Off duty policeman
- Convicted for failing to act in a public position
R v Mohan (1976)
- D sped up his car in order to hit a police officer
- Intended for the actus reus to occur, direct intent
R v Woollin [1999]
- D killed 3-month-old son by throwing him against a hard surface
- Not convicted for murder as D did not see that the result was a virtually certain consequence of his actions
R v Cunningham [1957]
- Cunningham damages gas meter causing gas to leak next door, poisoning the neighbour
- Court concluded recklessness should be a subjective test (Cunningham test)
R v Latimer (1886)
- D used his belt to hit someone, belt ricocheted and hit an unintended victim
- The malice transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice as the actus reus was the same
R v Pembliton (1874)
- D threw stones into a crowd, intending to disperse crowd
- Unintentionally smashed a window
- mens rea could not be transferred under Transferred Malice as actus reus was different
R v Lambert [2001]
- Legal burden of proof placed on D
- Ruled that this is contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, contrary to right to a fair trial
R v Mohan (1976)
- D sped up his car in order to hit a police officer
- Intended for the actus reus to occur, direct intent
R v Woollin [1999]
- D killed 3-month-old son by throwing him against a hard surface
- Not convicted for murder as D did not see that the result was a virtually certain consequence of his actions
R v Cunningham [1957]
- Cunningham damages gas meter causing gas to leak next door, poisoning the neighbour
- Court concluded recklessness should be a subjective test (Cunningham test)
R v Latimer (1886)
- D used his belt to hit someone, belt ricocheted and hit an unintended victim
- The malice transferred to V under the doctrine of transferred malice as the actus reus was the same
Sweet v Parsley [1970]
- Woman lets her cottage out to students, who, unbeknownst to her, grow marijuana.
- When provisions are unclear for the need of a mens rea, the courts have adopted an initial presumption in favour of mens rea rather than strict liability
Gammon Ltd v AG of Hong Kong [1985]
- Not binding, but gives good guidance
- 5 key strict liability steps:
- Presumption of mens rea
- Unless offence is regulatory/not truly criminal
- Unless statute indicates otherwise
- Only for public safety or social concern
- Will promote greater enforcement
Fagan v MPC [1969]
- Fagan drives foot onto police officer without realising
- Once told to get off, refused to move
- Court rules that the actus reus was a series of continuous events
R v Dudley [1989]
- D set fire to house with a fire bomb
- Despite that no-ones life was endangered, found guilty of Aggravated Criminal Damage - ulterior intent
R v Smith (1974)
- D, a tenant, removed electrical wiring from the walls when his tenancy expired
- As he believed the property belonged to his, was found not guilty
R v Hunt (1978)
- D set fire to a flat to prove that the fire alarms were defective
- Found that, ‘in order to protect property’ in Criminal Damage Act is objective - reasonable steps
R v Steer [1988]
- D shot at a window knowing someone was inside
- Charged with damaging property and reckless to endanger life
- Court ruled that the malice to endanger life must be by the damage caused, rather than the object/method which caused it
Jaggard v Dickinson [1981]
- D was intoxicated, broke into what she believed was her friends house, with the belief that she would have consented
- Even though she was intoxicated voluntarily, defence under lawful excuse permitted
R v Hill [1988]
- D put fences around US navy base to deter Russian attacks
- Ruled that the protection from damage was too remote
R v Denton [1981]
- D set fire to employers factory for insurance claim
- Conviction quashed. No requirement under defence of lawful excuse that the owners consent be honest
Hardman [1986]
Damage or destruction of property - that which incurs expense
