Fatal - legal principle Flashcards
Lord Coke (1797)
Defined Murder: The unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the queen’s peace (with malice aforethought)
R v Vickers (1957)
Intent to cause GBH is enough for men’s rea of murder
Attorney-General’s Reference [No. 3 of 1994] (1997)
- A foetus is not a ‘reasonable person in being’
Violence towards a foetus which causes harm
after birth may be considered criminal
R v Byrne (1960)
Defined abnormality of mind as: ‘a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.’
R v Lloyd (1967)
For diminished responsibility, ‘substantial impairment’ does not mean total, nor trivial or minimal – it is something in between.
R v Golds (2016)
For diminished responsibility, ‘substantial impairment’ must be more than trivial, but not every case that is more than trivial will meet the standard of substantial
R v Dietshcmann (2003)
Intoxication AND abnormality of functioning may constitute diminished responsibility (adjustment disorder)
R v Wood (2008)
Alcohol Dependency Syndrome (ADS) can constitute an abnormality of mental functioning
R v Stewart (2009)
Set out a 3-stage test for ADS as a cause of abnormality
R v Dowds (2012)
Voluntary intoxication alone cannot constitute diminished responsibility
R v Jewell (2014)
Loss of Control: The defendant must have ‘lost it’ or ‘snapped’ – acting out of character is not always enough
R v Ward (2012)
Loss of control: Fear of violence can be toward another, not necessarily V
R v Dawes (2013)
Loss of Control
1. Sexual infidelity alone is not a trigger
OR
- Fear of serious violence is not viable
where D instigated the violence
R v Zebedee (2012)
Qualifying trigger must:
a) Constitute circumstances of extremely grave character
AND
b) D must have a justifiable sense of being wronged
R v Hatter (2013)
Breakdown of a relationship not usually a qualifying trigger (extremely grave character) for Loss of Control
R v Bowyer (2013)
A sense of being seriously wronged cannot exist where D initiates an offence. (Loss of Control)
R v Clinton (2012)
Sexual infidelity alone is not a trigger but can be considered where it forms an essential part of context where other triggers also exist. (Loss of Control)
R v Asmelash (2013)
Voluntary intoxication cannot form part of D’s circumstances when considering a defence of loss of control
R v Lamb (1967)
A complete criminal act must take place for unlawful act manslaughter to be proven
R v Lowe (1973)
Omissions cannot constitute an ‘act’ under unlawful act manslaughter.
R v Larkin (1943)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: The unlawful act must be dangerous according to an objective test.
R v JM & SM (2012)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Enough that a reasonable person would foresee some harm.
R v Goodfellow (1986)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: The act can be against property provided that the reasonable person would foresee the risk of some harm.
R v Watson (1989)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: where D is aware of V’s frailty & risk of harm, D will be liable.
R v Bristow, Dunn and Delay (2013)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Burglary not usually considered dangerous, but will depend on circumstances.
R v Cato (1976)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Injecting V with drugs which lead to death can constitute UAM.
R v Dalby (1982)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Supplying illegal drugs but not administering – unlawful act but not what causes death.
R v Newbury & Jones (1976)
Unlawful Act Manslaughter: D must have men’s rea for unlawful act but doesn’t need to realise act is unlawful or dangerous
R v Singh (1999)
Gross Negligence Manslaughter: A duty of care can be contractual. (Landlord)
R v Litchfield (1998)
Gross Negligence Manslaughter: A duty of care can be contractual (Boat)
R v Wacker (2002)
Gross Negligence Manslaughter: A duty of care can be taken on voluntarily
R v Bateman (1925)
Gross Negligence Manslaughter: Negligence alone is not enough, the negligence must be gross
R v Misra and another (2004)
Gross Negligence Manslaughter: For the negligence to be gross, the jury must decide whether the defendant’s conduct was seriously negligent in relation to the risk of death.
