English Criminal Law Flashcards
(42 cards)
Describe R v Dytham 1973 and state derived principle
misconduct in public office (police officer). Police officer failed to intervene murder. Was charged with misconduct in public office and was fined. offences with reas but no actus.
Describe R v Pitwood 1902 and state derived principle.
contractual duty to shut railway crossing gates. Person injured and charged for injury. liable for omissions when under contractual duty.
Describe R v Hood 2004 and state derived principle
Charged with gross negligence manslaughter for not calling wife an ambulance upon falling. Liable for omissions where special/familial relationship.
Describe R v Nicholls 1874 and state derived principle
explicit agreement to care for V. Mother died and grandmother agreed to care for victim. Grandmother neglected victim who died and held she voluntarily assumed duty of care and failed to fulfil it so guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. liable for omission where there’s an assumption of care.
Describe R v Stone and Dobinson 1977 and state derived principle
ineffectual attempt to care for V. Practically blind and of low intelligence. Lived with mistress, Dobinson, who also had issues. Son described as low intelligence too. Stones sister came to live with them as a lodger who suffered with anorexia and isolated herself. Sister died and Stone and Dobinson charged with manslaughter. Convicted and upheld by appeal. They accepted responsibility for sister and when she became bedbound, they had a duty to help her. Made some efforts but deemed inadequate. Liable for omission where assumption of care.
Describe R v Ruffel and state derived principle
briefly tried to resuscitate V (overdose). Convicted of manslaughter. Both men took cocktail of drugs and one fell unconscious Ruffel tried to revive but when he couldn’t he left him outside the front of the house and went to bed. Victim died from hypothermia and the drugs. Assumed duty of care as they were friends, and victim was guest in Ruffel’s house. Convicted. liability for omissions where duty of care.
Descrbe R v Miller and state derived principle
Duty of defendant to act to avert danger they create. Squatter in building lying on mattress and lit a cigarette. Fell asleep, dropped cigarette, mattress aflame, switched rooms and left room. Fire caused £800 damage. Convicted of arson. Conviction upheld in appeal. Failed to counteract danger he created. liable for omissions where you create danger.
Describe R v Gemma Evans 2009 and state derived principle
supply of heroin (overdose). Defendant supplied heroin to half-sister, she injected it and overdosed. He was aware she was overdosing but sister died. His failure to get help after supplying the drugs breached his duty so convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. liable for omission where you create danger and don’t attempt to mitigate it.
Describe R v White 1910 and state derived principle
D attempted to poison his mother. Poisoned mothers drink with intent to kill, mother died after only a sip, but she had a heart attack from underlying heart condition and would have died but for his actions. Not guilty for his actions and did not cause her death. Convicted of attempted murder (conduct crime, did not require causation).
Describe R v Benge and state derived principle
Misread timetable when tracks were being dug up. Train came, track removed, someone died. Death could have been avoided if others warned the train driver; not upheld. Guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. May have been others were but for causes of the victim’s death and could have been independently liable, but presence of multiple factors does not undermine his cause. Don’t need to prove it was caused by one person or that you were even the most culpable involved.
Describe R v Dalloway 1847 and state derived principle
defendant performed blameworthy conduct and caused result, but blameworthiness of conduct was not central to causation. Driving horse and cart on highway. Negligent and let go of reigns. Child ran into road and died. Accepted that even if he did hold reigns, he could not have stopped in time to save the child. Not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. Negligent in driving (blameworthy) factual cause of child’s death but blameworthy conduct was not cause of death as victim would have died if not driving negligently too.
Describe R v Hughes 2013 and state derived principle
Driving without insurance or license. Fatal collision. Victim responsible for accident, drove onto wrong side of road and taken drugs. Hughes charged for causing death uninsured and without license. Courts found not guilty.
Describe R v Roberts 1971 and state derived principle
injured escaping from moving vehicle. Tried to molest victim in a moving car. Victim jumped out of the car and was injured. Victims escape held to be reasonably foreseeable result of defendant’s actions. Defendant caused the injuries and liable for them as an assault. Interventions from victim do NOT break chain of causation
Describe R v Kennedy No.2 2007 and state derived principle
self-injection (overdose). Defendant prepared syringe for victim. Victim injected themselves and died of overdose. Court found Kennedy guilty constructive manslaughter. HOL quashed conviction. Kennedy wasn’t guilty because not legal cause of death. Self-injection is a free deliberate informed act and broke chain of causation. Guilty of supplying a controlled drug.
Describe CF R v Field 2021
alcohol left with someone taking medication that
would react with alcohol. Defendant and victim in relationship and D manipulated V (older with health conditions), was drugging and gaslighting him, D seduced V and persuaded him to amend will. Gave medication poisonous with alcohol and left alcohol out on purpose. D argued not present when V drank it or died. Court found D guilty. Claimed victims drinking of the whisky was involuntary even if he agreed to drink it unless he knew the drink was being offered to him and intended to cause his death. D undisclosed murderous purpose changed the act.
Describe R v Rebelo 2021 and state derived principle
dangerous supplements supplied to young woman
with psychological vulnerabilities. Dangerous supplements supplied to woman with psychological difficulties. D advertised online food supplements but had dangerous chemical. V bought, became addicted, overdosed. Charged with gross negligence manslaughter. Did not make a free and voluntary decision by taking the amount she did. Vulnerabilities of victim making them susceptible to harm will not break the chain of causation. Eggshell skull rule.
Describe R v Blaue 1975 and state derived principle
V refused blood transfusion. Victim stabbed and needed blood transfusions. Refused for religious reasons and died. If more serious harm results than intended because of a characteristic of the victim, you are liable for that more serious harm.
Describe R v Dear 1996 and state derived principle
V aggravated wounds, resulting in death. 12-year-old daughter complained V sexually assaulted her. D took a knife and slashed V repeatedly. Treated in hospital but days later suffered shock blood loss and died. D charged with murder. D made operative and significant operative contribution to death despite possible intentional bleeding out.
Describe Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983) and the state derived principle
Man intoxicated and found in hospital. Refused to leave. Police called and physically removed him, placing him on a nearby highway. Charged with the offence of being “drunk on a highway.” Court convicted, as his voluntary or involuntary presence on the highway was immaterial. Still liable for involuntary actions.
Is failure to act criminal?
No.
Describe Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) and the state derived principle
HOL held it permissible to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from permanently vegetative patient. Held not causing death, just ‘letting die’. Doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients but this does not necessarily require them to prolong life.
What is the main test for causation?
‘But for’. ‘But for’ the defendant’s conduct, would the consequence have occurred?
Is ‘speeding up the inevitable’ a defence for causation?
No. Speeding up is still causation. Still liable for offence.
Is playing a small role in the causation of an offence a defence?
Does not matter. Still fulfils elements of murder. Not necessary to show the event was the only or even main cause.
