Criminal Law Sem 2 revision Flashcards
Hogg v MacPherson
ACTUS REUS
A horse-drawn furniture van in Edinburgh was overturned by a violent gust of wind, which caused it to crash into and flatten a lamppost. Although there was a law requiring individuals to repair council property they damaged, the driver refused to pay. The Court of Appeal ruled in his favor, stating he was not liable because the incident lacked actus reus—a voluntary act. It was deemed an “act of God,” as the wind caused the damage, not the driver’s actions.
R. v White
The accused attempted to murder his mother by poisoning her drink. Although she died, medical evidence revealed her death was caused by a heart attack, unrelated to the poisoning. Since the poisoning did not cause her death, there was no causation. However, he was still charged with attempted murder due to his intent and actions.
HM Advocate v Kerr & others
A group of youths committed a rape in a country lane, and another individual, Mr. Donald, was present but did not participate. He was charged alongside them but was acquitted at trial. The court found him not guilty because, under Scottish law, there is no legal duty to act or intervene. While his failure to assist the victim or seek help was morally wrong, it did not constitute a legal obligation.
Quinn v Lees
involved an incident where a dog was set upon a group of boys “as a joke.” The owner of the dog admitted to telling the dog to attack, and the prosecution argued that the motive of the joke was irrelevant under Scots law since the intention to cause harm was present
Paton v HM Advocate
A motor vehicle accident led to the driver being charged with culpable homicide. The court had to determine whether the driver’s actions amounted to gross negligence, a requirement for culpable homicide. Although negligence was present, it was insufficient to qualify as gross negligence. The court revised the initial verdict to a conviction for reckless or dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act of 1930.
Thabo Meli v R
The defendants planned to kill a man and staged it as an accident. They beat him, assumed he was dead, and threw him off a cliff. Medical evidence later revealed he died from exposure at the cliff’s base, not the beating. On appeal, they argued that the actus reus and mens rea did not align. The court upheld the convictions, ruling that the beating and throwing were part of a continuous act. Lord Reid dismissed separating the acts based on their misunderstanding as overly refined.
Roberts v Hamilton
This case involved an appeal against a conviction for assault heard in the Scottish High Court of Justiciary. Roberts, the appellant, was part of a fight at a funeral tea in Dunfermline, leading to Marjorie Stevens being injured. The court addressed whether the doctrine of transferred intent applies to assault in Scotland and whether the evidence showed reckless conduct or assault. The court upheld the guilty verdict, with the Lord Justice-General ruling that Roberts was responsible as the injury was a foreseeable outcome of the fight.
HM Advocate v Robertson and Donoghue
Two accused struggled with an elderly shopkeeper who later died of heart failure, compounded by his weak heart. The court ruled the attackers responsible for the death, despite the victim’s pre-existing condition. This set the principle that a defendant must “take their victim as they find them,” holding them accountable for harm caused, even if the victim is particularly vulnerable.
McDonald v HM Advocate
the victim had been seriously assaulted by the 2 accused Repeatedly kicked him on his head and body and locked him in his third floor flat, taking the keys with them.The evidence shows that within 30 minutes of both the accused leaving the building,the victim climbed out of his window, apparently in an attempt to escape,the floor below his broke when he stood in it, and he fell to his death.Now the victim, just to complicate matters, was a drug addict, and he consumed a large quantity of amphetamines on the day he died.The accused were charged MacDonald and another man with, culpable homicide and were convicted of culpable homicide.But MacDonald appealed on the grounds that it was his co-accused who actually locked the victim in the flat, not him.And therefore he said, I didn’t cause the victim’s death.And also, he decided to leave the flat via the window, which was a wholly unreasonable thing to do.
HM Advocate v Fraser & Rollins
Miss White lured victims into a park in Glasgow, where her two associates hid in the bushes. She would invite young men for a walk, and her associates would ambush, attack, and rob them. During one such incident, the victim was killed. Miss White testified for the prosecution and was exempt from liability as a Crown witness. Without her testimony, all three could have been held liable not only for the robbery but also for the victim’s death, which, while not planned, was deemed reasonably foreseeable.
Gallacher v HM Advocate
The case HM Advocate v Gallacher (1951) concerned the murder of John Edwin Newall during a chaotic scene at a circus in Hamilton, Scotland. Robert Gallacher and others were accused of assaulting and killing Newall. A key issue was whether Gallacher actively participated in kicking the victim. Gallacher’s appeal to introduce new evidence under the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926, was denied, as the court found the new evidence unlikely to alter the jury’s verdict. All involved were held liable for their spontaneous collective actions.
Boyne v HM Advocate
Two individuals attempted to rob a gun shop in Dundee, believing it to be empty. Upon entering, they were confronted by the manager, whom they subsequently killed. Each accused claimed to be the getaway driver and blamed the other for the death, arguing it was not part of their plan. However, the jury determined that both were aware of their actions and that the manager’s death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence. Both were convicted.
HM Advocate v The Camerons
A husband and wife pretended to be robbery victims, claiming their necklace was stolen, in an attempt to defraud an insurance company. Although they never filed a claim and the company took no action, they were charged with attempted fraud. The jury found them guilty, concluding that their actions constituted an attempt to commit the crime.
Docherty v Brown
Docherty v. Brown (1995) addressed whether an attempt to commit a crime could be charged despite the crime being impossible to complete. James Docherty was charged with possession of tablets he believed were controlled drugs, intending to supply them. The tablets contained no controlled substances. The court held that the charge was valid, as Docherty had the requisite intent and took substantial steps towards committing the offense.
West v HM Advocate
Mr. West and another individual were charged with conspiracy to commit assault and robbery. The two men were observed loitering suspiciously outside a bank, and one of them was in possession of an open razor. Both were charged based on their actions and intent.
Baxter v HM Advocate
Baxter, involved in a dispute over a tenement, proposed to his neighbors to collectively fund its improvement. When one tenant declined, Baxter decided to have him killed and offered a colleague £5,000 to commit the murder. The colleague reported this to the police, leading to Baxter’s conviction for incitement.
*Drury v HM Advocate
Stuart Drury was convicted of murdering his former partner with a hammer after discovering her new relationship. This case clarified Scottish law’s definition of murder, requiring either a “wicked intent to kill” or “wicked recklessness” regarding whether the victim lives or dies. It also addressed provocation, stating that the violence used must not be disproportionate to the provocation.
*HM Advocate v Purcell
The case of Isaac Michael Purcell involved dangerous driving that resulted in the death of a 10-year-old boy, Jack Anderson, at a pedestrian crossing controlled by traffic lights. The court determined that the circumstances did not qualify as murder because there was no wilful intent to cause harm. Instead, the dangerous driving itself was identified as the serious offense. The case highlights the distinction between murder and other offenses, emphasizing the need for a wilful act for a murder charge and the varying standards of recklessness in criminal law.
*Petto v HM Advocate
The case Petto v HM Advocate (2011) involved Samuel Petto, who was convicted of murder after setting fire to a tenement flat in Glasgow to dispose of a body. The fire caused the death of a resident, Myra Donachie, due to smoke inhalation. The court ruled that wilful fire-raising in an urban tenement, knowing it was occupied, demonstrated sufficient intent for a murder charge. This case clarified that such reckless actions, with foreseeable harm, meet the criteria for murder under Scots law.
*Tomney v HM Advocate
Tomney v HM Advocate (2012) involved John Gary Tomney, who was convicted of culpable homicide and firearms offenses after recklessly discharging a handgun, causing the death of his friend, Ian Langford. Tomney argued the gun fired accidentally while he handled it, but the court determined his reckless behavior was responsible for Langford’s death.
Transco PLC v HM Advocate No. 1
Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No.1) was the first prosecution of a public limited company for culpable homicide in Scotland. A 1999 gas explosion in Larkhall killed four people, leading to a £15 million fine for Transco by the Health and Safety Executive. In 2003, Transco faced charges of culpable homicide and violating the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. While the High Court deemed it permissible to charge a company with culpable homicide, the prosecutor’s approach to proving mens rea was flawed, making the charge irrelevant. This case clarified corporate criminal liability and emphasized the need for statutory or vicarious liability in such cases.
John Roy
The accused intentionally smashed a window, not realizing a girl was nearby. Glass shards injured her eye, leading to a charge of assault. However, he was acquitted since there was no deliberate attack, and his actions did not meet the legal definition of assault.
Smart v HM Advocate
Smart v HM Advocate (1975) established that consent is not a valid defense to a charge of assault in Scots law. William Smart was charged with assault during a consensual fight, or “square go,” arguing that the victim, Isaac Wilkie, had agreed to the altercation. The High Court ruled that an attack carried out with the intent to cause harm constitutes assault, regardless of mutual consent. This case reinforced the principle that consent does not excuse criminal conduct in such circumstances.
R v Brown
R v Brown (1994) is a landmark UK case addressing consent and assault. A group of men engaged in consensual sadomasochistic activities over a decade and were convicted under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for unlawful wounding and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The House of Lords ruled that consent was not a valid defense, emphasizing that allowing harm, even consensually, was against public interest. This case underscored the limits of personal autonomy and reinforced the state’s role in preventing harm.
Stewart v Nisbet
HM Advocate v Harris (1993) is a key case in Scots law. Harris, a nightclub doorman, recklessly ejected a woman from a club, causing her to fall down a staircase and into the road, where she was hit by a car, resulting in severe injury and permanent disfigurement. The High Court ruled that reckless conduct causing injury is a criminal offense, clarifying that liability focuses on recklessness and harm caused, not on the specific wording of the charge.
Black v Carmichael
The accused clamped a car parked on his property and demanded £45 for its release, displaying a sign warning of the clamping and associated fee. The Crown charged him with theft and extortion, arguing that, by holding the car to ransom, he had effectively “stolen” it. Despite having no intention to permanently keep the car, the act of temporarily depriving the owner of full access constituted theft. This case highlights that temporary appropriation of property can still meet the legal definition of theft, alongside the additional charge of extortion.
Adcock v Archibald
This case involved a coal miner, Adcock, who received a salary and a bonus for collecting a certain amount of coal. To track each miner’s contribution, each hutch of coal bore a tag with the miner’s name. Adcock swapped his tag with another miner’s hutch to falsely claim the bonus. His actions were deemed to be under false pretenses, committed to achieve a result—the bonus. The court ruled this constituted a completed crime of fraud, emphasizing that even a small practical result, like the bonus, suffices to establish fraud.
Byrne v HM Advocate (No. 2)
The court emphasized that willful fire-raising is considered a deliberate act. In this case, the accused was charged with willful fire-raising of a building after lighting a piece of paper, which subsequently caused the building to catch fire. However, the court determined that the accused did not willfully set the building on fire and was, therefore, guilty only of willfully lighting the paper. Nonetheless, he was held culpable for the reckless fire-raising of the building due to the consequences of his actions.
*Smith v Donnelly
A woman was charged with breach of the peace for protesting in the roadway. She challenged the charge under Article 7 of the Human Rights Act, arguing that the law was too vague and should be specific enough for people to understand if their actions are criminal. The court ruled against her, stating that breach of the peace requires conduct severe enough to alarm ordinary people and pose a serious disturbance to the community.
*Jones v Carnegie; Tallents v Gallacher
The conjoined appeal of Jones v Carnegie and Tallents v Gallacher (2004) clarified how Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect freedom of expression and assembly, interact with breach of the peace charges. Both cases emphasized the importance of balancing public order with individual rights, with the High Court stressing that the context and impact on public order are crucial in determining whether conduct amounts to breach of the peace.
*Harris v HM Advocate
The accused told police officers that he knew personal details about their families, such as their children’s schools and spouses’ jobs. He was charged with breach of the peace. On appeal, he argued that his actions did not meet the threshold for breach of the peace. The court emphasized that the key element of breach of the peace is the public element and its impact on the community, noting that conduct must, in some way, threaten serious disturbance to the public to constitute the offense. The case highlighted the importance of the public nature of the behavior when determining breach of the peace.
*Cadder v HM Advocate
The Cadder case reformed Scots law after the Supreme Court ruled that confessions made without offering the accused access to a lawyer were inadmissible, as this violated the European Convention on Human Rights. Cadder’s conviction for assault was challenged on these grounds, leading to over 800 cases being dismissed. Following this ruling, detainees in Scotland gained the right to legal representation during questioning, and police detention was extended from 6 to 12 hours to facilitate access to a lawyer. The decision drew influence from Salduz v Turkey, which emphasized the importance of legal access for a fair trial.
*Moorov v HM Advocate
The Moorov case established the Moorov doctrine in Scots law. Moorov, a draper, was charged with 21 assaults and attempted rapes over seven years, all involving young female employees. As these offenses occurred in private, there was no direct corroboration for each charge. However, the court introduced the Moorov doctrine, allowing multiple similar charges, close in time and nature, to collectively provide corroboration. This principle remains significant in Scots law for cases involving patterns of similar offenses.
*Lord Advocate’s Reference (No. 1 of 2023)
A 7-judge decision overruled a prior 5-judge ruling in a case involving allegations of rape. The complainer testified that she was invited to a neighbor’s flat, consumed alcohol, suspected she was spiked, and was raped after her boyfriend briefly left. Witnesses included the neighbor, who denied any sexual activity, and the boyfriend, who described the complainer fleeing the flat distressed. Additional evidence came from a neighbor who saw her screaming and pointing to the flat, and her sister, who received a distressed phone call. The jury acquitted the accused, citing insufficient proof. The 7-judge bench clarified that corroboration in Scots law requires only some supporting evidence, emphasizing simplicity in evidentiary rules to aid juries.
*HM Advocate v PG and JM
The 9-judge decision arose from a case where the complainer promptly disclosed being raped to the first reasonable person, which was critical in establishing corroboration. The court ruled that a recent statement made by the complainer could serve as corroborative evidence, even on its own, provided it was made at the first reasonable opportunity. This decision emphasized the importance of timeliness and reliability in such statements, simplifying the rules of evidence. It clarified that corroboration could exist if the complainer’s account was consistent and promptly disclosed, ensuring fairness while maintaining evidentiary standards.
Gubinas v HM Advocate
This case was a significant decision by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary concerning the use of video evidence in criminal trials. The appellants, convicted of rape, challenged how juries should evaluate video footage as evidence. The court ruled that jurors could independently assess video evidence in the same way as eyewitness testimony. Although the trial judge’s instructions to the jury were questioned for being potentially unclear, the appeal court concluded that the directions were generally appropriate and did not disadvantage the appellants. The convictions were upheld.
Lawrie v Muir
In a seven-bench decision, Mrs. Lawrie, a milk producer, was found using bottles from another producer. The Milk Marketing Board inspected her farm without legal authority as she was not a member. The court ruled the evidence inadmissible, emphasizing the need to balance citizens’ rights against the state’s interest in justice, while stating that improperly obtained evidence cannot be used.
H.M Advocate v. Chalmers
A 16-year-old boy, initially denying involvement in a murder, was later woken early and subjected to intense police questioning, including cross-examination where they accused him directly of the crime. He eventually confessed and led police to the victim’s property. On appeal, the confession was ruled inadmissible as the questioning was deemed unfair and had escalated into improper cross-examination, violating procedural fairness.
*Davie v Edinburgh Magistrates
houses were damaged due to explosions used by workmen constructing a sewer. The pursuer relied on witnesses to testify about when the cracks appeared but did not present expert evidence on the explosions’ effects. The defender provided three expert witnesses, but their opinions were inconsistent. The court ruled in favor of the pursuer, finding the workmen responsible for the damage. On appeal, the court upheld the decision, emphasizing that expert evidence is only advisory and cannot definitively prove causation if it lacks sufficient weight or agreement.
Sweet v Parsley
a teacher rented a room to students who smoked cannabis resin on the premises. She was charged under a drug law that criminalized managing premises used for drug use. She appealed, arguing that the law should require mens rea (knowledge of the activity). The House of Lords ruled in her favor, stating that Parliament did not intend to criminalize individuals without fault or moral blameworthiness. They held that the absence of the word “knowingly” in the statute was not sufficient to remove the requirement for mens rea, and the landlady was found not guilty.
*Thomson v HM Advocate
the accused was convicted of armed robbery when he drove the getaway van in a robbery.And he said, I accept that there’s plenty evidence I drove that van as part of this robbery,but I should be found not guilty because I was coerced, he said.The other members of the gang threatened him with a gun. And in fact, they injured his hand to show that they meant business.The jury convicted the man of armed robbery but then he apealed and the apeal court said the original judge was correct in letting the jury decide the decision .
