Criminal Liability Flashcards
R v R (martial rape) 1991 -AR
D charged for attempting of raping his wife. They were married but lived in different houses. Wife did not consent
Outcome: Guilty
Ratio: society views on women changed + House of Lords changed + developed law
The golden red case
Woolmington 1935
Charged for murdering his wife. He had shot his wife once but had to prove it.
Outcome: Jury acquitted with an appeal
Ratio: “golden thread” D is innocent proven guilty as prosecutor showed the proof of burden. Must always have
Winzar V chief Constable of Kent 1983
Drunk in the way of hospital staff. Asked him to leave but didn’t leave. Had to call police
Outcome: Guilty
Ratio: Not leaving created a “state of affair” (being there)
R v Larsonneur 1933
French women deported against her will from Ireland to the Uk. Charged of being an “illegal alien”
Outcome: guilty
Ratio: let her passport expired. Should have renewed it
Hill V Baxter 1958
Had no memory of driving when being ill.
Outcome: not guilty for dangerous driving
Ratio: wasn’t voluntary. Was allowed an appeal
Pittawood 1902 -OMISSIONS
He left the gate open for the horse and cart on the crossing whilst wanting a sandwich and killed the train driver.
Held: guilty for manslaughter
Ratio: failed to close gates breach his duty to act under a contract of employment
R V Gibson + Proctor
Both parents failed to feed their 7 year old and let her starved to death
Held: guilty for murder
Ratio: Duty of care towards their child. Failed to feed led to death
R v Stone + Dobinson
D was blind + death. Girlfriend was inadequate but offered to agree letting his sister move in. She was anorexic and later on found dead in the house
Held: guilty for manslaughter
Ratio: Failure to complete his voluntary duty of care towards V was his AR
R V Miller
Fell asleep with a cigarette. Mattress caught on fire so he moved rooms. Ended up burning + damaging the whole building
Held: Guilty
Ratio: D causes damages was a duty limited on accidental action
Dytham 1979
D was on duty in police uniform. Stood there whilst bouncer kicked V to death to do nothing
Held: guilty
Ratio: As the holder of public officer, D failure to act was his AR
R V Naughton (2001)
He was off duty of police officer. Friend attacked the restaurant owner but didn’t intervene.
Held: guilty of misconduct in public office
Ratio: As the holder of the public officer, D was failure to act was his AR
Airedale NHS TRUST V Bland
Rushed into Hillsborough tragedy was left in PVS for several years afterwards. Doctors were feeding him on machines but had to let him go
Held: permission was granted V died 7 days after
Ratio: doctors can withdraw medical treatment knowing the death will result . Was omission
R V khan + khan
Gave heroine to a 15 year old girl. She took drugs + collapsed. On the same day she died later on
Held: Not guilty for of gross negligence manslaughter
Ratio: the court foresaw (predict) for the doctors being owned in this kind of situation in the future
White (1910) -CAUSATION
Facts: D put poison in mums tea. Took sip and she died from a heart attack
Held: guilty for attempted murder
Ratio: “but for” (if they hadn’t) she would have still died. Ds act to Vs act was broken by a heart attack
Pagett (1983)
Facts: D got into a fight with police + used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield. She was shot + died with the baby
Held: Guilty for manslaughter
Ratio: But for using her as a shield she would have not died
Kimsey (1996)
Facts: 2 girls racing and crashed. Victim lost control before collision
Held: guilty for dangerous driving
Ratio: To establish causation Ds act or omission must be a minimal cause of death
Jordan (1956)
D stabbed victim. Hospital gave him treatment but he was allergic and therefor died due to the treatment
Held: D was not liable for V death
Ratio: D did not make “significant contribution” to Vs death. Hospital gross negligence was broken by the chains of causation
Smith
Facts: soldiers got into a fight. Was stabbed with a bayonet. Friend took him for treatment, delayed, dropped 2 times and received a bad treatment
Held: guilty for murder
Ratio: the stabbed wound made the “significant contribution”. Hospital negligence did not cause death
Mohan- MR
Ratio: direct intent of a desired outcome
R v Woolin
Ratio: oblique intent (intention didn’t go as how he planned it to be)
R v cunningham
Tried stealing from meter. Leaked and killed 2 girls next door
Guilty
Ratio: subjectively recklessness. Requires d to deliberately take risk
R v Latimer -TRANSFERRED MALICE
Got intro argument got belt n hit V1 and V2
Guilty
Ds intention to V1 transferred to V2
R v Mitchell
Pushed into post office que and fell into elderly lady who injured + died in hospital
Guilty
Intention to V1 transferred to V2
R V Pembelton
Throw stones in a crowd and cause ABH on a person
Guilty
Crime against a person can’t transfer to a crime against property. Transferred malice does not cross different types of offence
Fagan V MPC -CONTEMPORARY RULE
D was driving and parked onto police officer foot. Asked him to move but refused n switched engine off
Guilty
AR was a continuing act. Guilty if mens rea was present during AR
Thebo Mali V R
Violent gang kidnapped V + tried killing him. Threw him off cliff n died from exposure
Guilty
AR is a series of event. Guilty if he started it when MR was first performed
Sweet V parsley -STRICT LIABILITY
Facts: Rented farmhouse to students. They smoked cannabis she didn’t know.
Not guilty
Ratio: was not an offence of SL, MR was required
Pharmaceutical society of GB V Storkwain
Facts: supplied forged prescriptions
Was convicted
Ratio: Offence of SL, MR did not matter
Callow V Tillstone
Facts: Gave unfit meat when he went to the vet to check if it’s suitable to give
Guilty
Ratio: SL produce harsh results
Harrow LBC V Shah + Shah
Facts: gave a 13yr old a lottery ticket even though they had signs up to not sell under 16
Guilty
Ratio: defence of due diligence (took all steps within his power to not commit an offence)
B (A minor) V DPP
Facts: charged for asking a 14yr old to commit an act of gross indecency. She was act 13
Not guilty
Ratio: offence was a custodial sentence, unlikely of SL offence
R v Blake
Facts: broadcasted on an unlicensed radio
Guilty
Ratio: involves potential danger, offence of SL
Alphacell LTD V Woodward
Facts: factory dumped human feus into their drinking water
Guilty
Ratio: offence of public concern, part of SL
Smedley V Breed
Facts: manufactured peas but caterpillars came out of it
Guilty
Ratio: SL offence, could of removed caterpillars
R v Prince
Facts: charged for taking child from her father, believed she was 18
Guilty
Ratio: Vs age not required, SL part of offence
R v hibbert
Facts: possession of her father but knew she was underage
Not guilty
Ratio: living with father required, was not SL part of offence
R V roberts n R V William
Ratio: reasonable foreseeable
Not RS- wallet Williams
