Criminal Law Cases

Question 1

Woolmington v DPP [1935]

Answer 1

• D charged with murder of his wife

- HoL ruled that it was for the prosecution to prove that D intended to kill his wife

Question 2

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

R v Stone and Dobinson [1977]

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

R v Pittwood (1902)

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

R v Miller [1983]

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

R v Naughton (2001)

Answer 6

• Off duty policeman

- Convicted for failing to act in a public position

Question 7

R v Mohan (1976)

Answer 7

• D sped up his car in order to hit a police officer

- Intended for the actus reus to occur, direct intent

Question 8

R v Woollin [1999]

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

R v Cunningham [1957]

Answer 9

• Cunningham damages gas meter causing gas to leak next door, poisoning the neighbour
• Court concluded recklessness should be a subjective test (Cunningham test)

Question 10

R v Latimer (1886)

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

R v Pembliton (1874)

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

R v Lambert [2001]

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

R v Mohan (1976)

Answer 13

• D sped up his car in order to hit a police officer

- Intended for the actus reus to occur, direct intent

Question 14

R v Woollin [1999]

Answer 14

• 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

Question 15

R v Cunningham [1957]

Answer 15

• Cunningham damages gas meter causing gas to leak next door, poisoning the neighbour
• Court concluded recklessness should be a subjective test (Cunningham test)

Question 16

R v Latimer (1886)

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

Sweet v Parsley [1970]

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

Gammon Ltd v AG of Hong Kong [1985]

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Fagan v MPC [1969]

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

R v Dudley [1989]

Answer 20

• D set fire to house with a fire bomb

- Despite that no-ones life was endangered, found guilty of Aggravated Criminal Damage - ulterior intent

Question 21

R v Smith (1974)

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

R v Hunt (1978)

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

R v Steer [1988]

Answer 23

• 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

Question 24

Jaggard v Dickinson [1981]

Answer 24

• 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

Question 25

R v Hill [1988]

Answer 25

• D put fences around US navy base to deter Russian attacks

- Ruled that the protection from damage was too remote

Question 26

R v Denton [1981]

Answer 26

• D set fire to employers factory for insurance claim

- Conviction quashed. No requirement under defence of lawful excuse that the owners consent be honest

Question 27

Hardman [1986]

Answer 27

Damage or destruction of property - that which incurs expense