Criminal Law - General Principles of Criminal Law Flashcards
AG’s Ref (No.3 of 2003)
Facts: Police officers were accused of manslaughter by gross negligence and misconduct in public office, having failed to act to prevent the death of a prisoner
Principle: The House of Lords in G had ‘resolved’ the proper approach to the concept of recklessness. The test set out in G is of general application - it does not just apply to the MR (Mens read) for criminal damage.
APPLIED R v G
Chandler v DPP
Facts: The defendant’s intention was to break into an airfield to protest against nuclear weapons. The motive behind it was to protect people from nuclear weapons.
Principles: Motive and intention are different and must not be confused
Fagan v MPC
Facts: A man accidentally backed his car into a policeman’s foot. He then refused to move the car, but argued there had been no crime, as there was no intention when he first backed the car onto his foot.
Principles: Where the AR involved a continuing act, it is sufficient for the defendant to have the MR at any point
R V Benge
Facts: A railway worker didn’t give a train driver sufficient warning that tracks ahead had been taken out of repair. The driver was not paying attention and did not notice a ‘flagman’ who had been sent up the tracks to warn any approaching trains. The train crashed, and many people died.
Principles: The defendant does not need to be the sole cause of an incident to be criminally liable. Here, Benge was liable event thought the train drive was partially at fault.
R v Blaue
Facts: A women was stabbed. She refused a blood transfusion as she was a johavah’s witness and her fair forbade it. She later died.
Principle: Refusal of medical treatment is unlikely to be a nous cactus interventions breaking the chain of causation.
R v Cato*
Facts: The defendant purchased heroin and injected his friend with it. The friend died after his respiratory system shut down.
Principle: ‘Substantial’ (for the purpose of Pagett) means more than de minimis.
Applied Pagett
R v Caldwell
Facts: The defendant got drunk and decided to take revenge on his former employer by setting a hotel on fire. Guests were inside at the time.
Principle: Introduced a subjective elements, which is no longer law, to the Cunningham test for recklessness.
Overruled by R v G
R v Cheshire
Facts: A man was shot. He needed surgery, but later died, partly as a result of a failure on the doctor’s part. The defendant was still convicted of murder, as his actions contributed significantly to the death.
Principle: To break the chain of causation, medical treatment must make the original cause insignificant, which it did not in this case.
R v Cunningham*
Facts: The defendant tore a gas meter off a wall to steal money. He broke the pipes in doing so and the escaping gas poisoned his mother-in-law.
Principle: Established the test for Cunningham recklessness: whether the defendant has foreseen the particular kind of harm and gone on to take the risk anyway.
See also AG’s ref (no 3 of 2003), Caldwell and G
R v Dalloway
Facts: A horse-drawn cart hit and killed a child that had run out in front of it. Dalloway was driving it without holding the reins. However, he would not have been able to stop even if he had been holding the reins, so he was not liable for the death.
Principles: The outcome must be caused by the ‘culpable act’. Here, not holding the reins was not the cause of death, so there was no liability.
R v Dear
Facts: After an attack with a knife and subsequent medical treatment, the victim deliberately re-opened his wounds, causing his death. The defendant argued that he suicide was a nous actus interveniens, but the court held that the chain of causation has not been broken.
Principles: Where the acts remains operating and substantial (as per the Pagett test), even after a suicide, the defendant may still be liable.
Applied Pagett.
R v G*
Facts: Two boys lit a fire in a bin, thinking it would burn itself out. However, the fire spread and caused substantial damage to a nearby shop. At issue was the appropriate definition of recklessness in the case of property damage.
Principles: London Bingham set the R v G test for recklessness: A person acts recklessly with respect to (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exit, (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances know to him, unreasonable to take the risk’
See also AG’s ref (no 3 of 2003), Caldwell and Cunningham.
R v Hayward
Facts: The defendant chased his wife into the street where she collapsed and died. She had a rare medical conditions. The defendant was guilty of manslaughter.
Principles: The ‘thin skull rule’ means the defendant takes his victim as he finds him and is responsible for the particular damage caused.
R v Kimsey
Facts: A car chase resulted in the death of one girl after the other crashed.
Principles: ‘Substantial’ (for the purposes of Pagett) means more than slight or trifling.
R v Latimer*
Facts: The defendant aimed at a man with his belt. His strike ricocheted and hit a women in the face, causing her serious injury.
Principles: Established the doctrine of transferred maline, where the requisite MR can be transferred from one person to another such that it can coincide with the AR in respect of that other person.
