criminal law- elements

Question 1

what is the definition of direct intention and the case to support it

Answer 1

D’s main aim and purpose (case: Mohan)

Question 2

what is the definition of oblique intention and the case to support it

Answer 2

D foresaw the consequence as a virtual certainty (case: Woollin)

Question 3

what is the definition of recklessness and the case to support it

Answer 3

Taking an unjustified risk (case: Cunningham)

Question 4

What case supports the continuing act?

Answer 4

Fagan v metropolitan police commissioner

Question 5

What case supports a series of events?

Answer 5

Thabo meli and church

Question 6

When can’t malice be transferred and what case supports it?

Answer 6

If the crimes are different (case: Mitchell and gnago)

Question 7

The ratio of mohan

Answer 7

Intention is a decision that lies in the accused power no matter whether a desired the consequence of his action or not , so it was his main aim or purpose.

Question 8

What does S8 criminal justice act 1967 say

Answer 8

1) a court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only if it’s being a natural consequence of these actions
2) decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all evidence

Question 9

Explain the case of woolin

Answer 9

F: D was angry whilst feeding his 3 month old son and threw him towards the peak the baby hit the wall and died
H:the court will infer intention if
1)objective =the consequence is a virtually certain result of the act
2)subjective = D knows that it is a virtual certain consequence

Question 10

Explain the case Of Matthews and alleyne

Answer 10

F:D’s pushed their v from a bridge into a river knowing that he couldn’t swim they pushed him head towards the bank but did not stay to see if he succeeded in getting out and the V drowned
H:the c of a stressed that the D’s appreciation of death or serious bodily harm as a virtual certainty does not constitute the necessary intention for murder but it is something from which intention can be inferred

Question 11

Explain the case of Cunningham

Answer 11

F:d in the case broke a gas meter to steal the money in it and the gas seeped our into the house next door cunninghams prospective mother in law was sleeping there and became so ill her life was endangered
H:Cunningham charged under S23 of the offences against the persons act 1861 with maliciously administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life
Subjective recklessness is that D foresaw the risk and went ahead with it anyway Cunningham was found not guilty as you couldn’t show he knew of the risk of harming somebody

Question 12

Explain the case of fagan v metropolitan police commissioner

Answer 12

F:d did not notice he had drove onto a policeman’s foot when asked to move his car he left it there
H: driving into officers foot and staying there was one continuous act so as long as D had mens rea at some point during that continuing act he was guilty

Question 13

explain the case of Thabo meli

Answer 13

f: d beat up a man believing he was dead he threw him off a cliff
h: mr is formed for the first act continued over a series of acts and a consequence some days later

Question 14

explain the case of church

Answer 14

f: d and v were attempting to have sex v mocked d and a fight broke out and he knocked her unconscious believing she was dead he threw her down a river and she drowned
h: mr continued despite d belief of a change of circumstance as mr occurred at some point during this event d was guilty of manslaughter

Question 15

explain the case of Mitchell

Answer 15

f: d tried to jump the queue at post office an elderly man took issue with appellant behaviour and challenged him d hit the old man and pushed him the man fell back onto others into the queue an old lady broke her leg and died and d was convicted of manslaughter
h: mr could be transferred from the intended victim (old man) to the actual victim (old woman) because the actual and intended crime were the same

Question 16

explain the case of gnango

Answer 16

f: v was walking home from a nursing home through a car park in south London she was on the phone and shot in the head and killed shouts were exchanged between b and gnango b wasn’t found his bullet hit v but gnango was responsible for murder malice was transferred
h: b would have been guilty of murder but under transferred malice gnango because of participation was also guilty of murder

Question 17

explain the case of pharmaceutical society of great Britain v storkwain LTD

Answer 17

f: d didn’t know they were forged and supplied drugs without a genuine prescription
H: d was charged under medicines act 1968 which states no one shall supply certain drugs without a prescription (they were forged)

Question 18

explain the case of sweet v parsley

Answer 18

f: school teacher let her house out to students who were smoking cannabis in the house she wasn’t aware and was charged with an offence of being concerned with the management of premise which were being used for the purposes of smoking contrary to the s5 (b) of dangerous drugs act 1965 statute didn’t state any requirement of MR
H: she was convicted by magistrates of “being concerned in the management of premises which were used for the purpose of smoking cannabis “ contrary to S5(b) of the dangerous drugs act 1965 miss sweet was found guilty although she had no knowledge that cannabis was being smoked she appealed to the house of lords they held that she was not guilty as presumption of MR was required had not been rebutted- crime wasn’t one of strict liability required more proof of MR

Question 19

What were the 2 cases for strict liability?

Answer 19

1. Blake -pirate radio broadcasts interfering with emergency channels
2. London borough of Harrow v shah -selling a lottery ticket to an underage child was strictly liable even though the staff has been trained to check ID

Question 20

Which case set the guidelines for use of strict liability but lord scarman

Answer 20

Gammon v AG for Hong Kong

Question 21

What are the facts of the case gammon v AG for Hong Kong

Answer 21

D’s we’re liable when part of the building they were helping to construct collapsed even though the company were unaware of that the plans weren’t being followed privy council again stressed that the main reason for enforcing strict liability in such cases was to protect the public

Question 22

What are the facts Of the other strict liability cases

Answer 22

Callow v tillsone- a butchers was convicted for selling unfit meat despite the fact a vet had declared the meat to be safe case like this ensure that quality control standards are kept as high as possible
R v Howells -D’s convicted for failing to obtain a firearms certified was upheld despite the fact he believed the gun was an antique and therefore did not require a certificate

Question 23

Explain the case of alphacell v Woodward

Answer 23

F: paper making company’s overflow pumped polluted water into a river because the over flow was blocked despite regular maintenance and inspection systems the company was found guilty and fined
H: if the offence were not one of strict liability is used to encourage greater vigilance in business

Question 24

what was the criteria decided by the Gammon case to be used by the courts in deciding whether it was appropriate to impose strict liability

Answer 24

1) presumption of MR especially if “truly criminal in character”
2) statute must clearly exclude MR e.g. “knowingly”
3) presumption is rebutted if there’s an issue of public concern or public safety
4) presumption still stand unless it will ensure greater vigilance e.g. careful

Question 25

Explain the case of R v G

Answer 25

F:a 15yr old boy was charged with raping a 12yr old girl under S5 sexual offences act 2003 the girl in fact consented to sec and had told him she was 15 he pleaded guilty (upon legal advice) and was convicted but appealed against his 12 month detention order arguing inter alia that it was unfair for an offence as serious as this to he one of strict liability
H:the mental element of the offence under section 5 it makes clear is that penetration must be intentional but there is no requirement that the accused must have known that the other person was under 13 the policy is the legislation is to protect children

Question 26

What case links to creating a dangerous situation, explain it

Answer 26

Miller - he was squatting and set the mattress on fire and failed to rectify the situation

Question 27

explain the case for A parental duty to act

Answer 27

Gibbons and proctor-failed to feed the child to cause GBH and were guilty of murder as they were under a duty to act

Question 28

explain the case for a Contractual duty

Answer 28

Pittwood- gatekeeper failed to shut gate after he let a car through as a result a hay cart crossed while a train approached and hit the car causing the driver to die and the gatekeeper was convicted of manslaughter as it was his contractual duty to act

Question 29

explain the case for the Duty of carers

Answer 29

Stone and Robinson- stones sister was ill and they failed to get help from w doctor because if her anorexia she stopped eating and does they were libel for he death as they had an assumed responsibility to her by taking her in they failed to look after her

Question 30

explain the case for Duty through an official position

Answer 30

Dytham-police officer witnessed a violent attack on victim but took no steps to intervene and instead drove off officer was guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty

Question 31

examples of Acts of parliament requiring action

Answer 31

There are many examples of this ranging from the requirement to wear a seatbelt whilst driving a car to neglect of failure to look after a child under the children and young persons act 1933

Question 32

Explain the case of Marchant and muntz

Answer 32

F:D1(farmer) gave hay bailer to D2 (employee) to drive on public road motor cyclist (v) hit the vehicle at speed and impaired himself on the spikes and died D2 convicted of dangerous driving
H: no suggestions driving was dangerous so conviction was quashed

Question 33

R v Larsonneur

Answer 33

F: D (a french woman) ordered to leave UK and went or R of Ireland she was immediately deported and returned the o the UK she was arrested “an alien to whom leave hadn’t been granted to remain”
H:convicted because despite her actions not being voluntary she met the requirements for the AR

Question 34

What case is used for factual causation (but for)

Answer 34

white

Question 35

Explain the case of white

Answer 35

F: D put cyanide in his mother’s tea intending to kill her but she does of a heart attack before she could drink the tea
H: D wasn’t liable

Question 36

Explain the case of blaue

Answer 36

F: V was a Jehovah’s who got stabbed because v couldn’t accept blood transfusion she died
H: D was liable because he must take their victim as they find them (religious belief or physical condition) and the stab wound was still the operating and substantial cause of death

Question 37

Explain the case of Kennedy

Answer 37

F: D supplied heroin to his friend V voluntarily took the drug
H: V’ s actions broke the chain of causation and was liable

Question 38

Explain the case of Roberts

Answer 38

F: V accepted a lift from D who tried to rape her as the car sped off V jumped from the car and suffered cuts and bruises
H: D was still liable because V didn’t do anything ‘daft or unexpected’ and her actions were reasonably foreseeable

Question 39

Explain the case of Jordan

Answer 39

F: V was stabbed a week later at hospital the wound had almost healed Dr gave him the wrong injection and he died
H: the original injury wasn’t the cause of death the medical treatment was palpably wrong so there was no legal causation and D was acquitted

Question 40

Explain the case of Cheshire

Answer 40

F: V was shot in the thigh and stomach he was given a tracheotomy at the hospital and died of rare complications
H: D was guilt as his actions put V in position when tracheotomy went wrong so D is liable

Question 41

Explain the case of Pagett

Answer 41

F: D was holding his pregnant gf by force as a hostage /human shield and police shot her as H: the act was reasonably foreseeable D was still liable

Question 42

Explain the case of kimsey

Answer 42

F: Two girls were racing D hit V and V died D tried to blame V’s death on V’s driving but the court found more than a trifling link between D’s driving and V’s death.
H: D’s driving didn’t have to be the principal or substantial Cause of death as long as you’re sure it was a cause