General Principles of Criminal Law

Question 1

AG’s Ref (No.3 of 2003)

Answer 1

Ratio: R v G is the correct test for recklessness.

Question 2

Chandler v DPP

Answer 2

Ratio: Motive and intention are different and should not be confused.

Facts: 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.

Question 3

Fagan v MPC

Answer 3

Ratio: Where the AR involves a continuing act, it is sufficient for the defendant to have the MR at any point.

Facts: A man accidentally reversed onto a policeman’s foot. However, he then refused to move off his foot. Held he had the MR at the point he refused to move and the whole event could be viewed as a continuing act.

Question 4

R v Benge

Answer 4

Ratio: Defendant does not need to be the sole cause of an incident to be criminally liable.

Question 5

R v Blaue

Answer 5

Ratio: 1. Refusal of medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation. 2. Thin skull rule

Facts: A Jehovah’s Witness died because she refused to accept a blood transfusion. Held not to break the chain.

Question 6

R v Cato

Answer 6

Ratio: Substantial means more than de minimis.

Question 7

R v Cheshire

Answer 7

Ratio: To break the chain of causation, medical treatment must make the original cause insignificant.

Facts: A man who had been shot died as a result of a failure on the doctor’s part. The defendant was still convicted of murder as the doctor’s failure was not so palpably wrong as to break the chain of causation.

Question 8

R v Cunningham

Answer 8

Ratio: Original test for recklessness - defendant foresaw the risk and took it anyway. Overruled by R v G.

Question 9

R v Dalloway

Answer 9

Ratio: The outcome must be caused by the culpable act.

Facts: A horse-drawn cart hit and killed a child that had run out in front of it. Dalloway had not been holding the reins. However, he would not have been able to stop even if he had been and so he was not liable.

Question 10

R v Dear

Answer 10

Ratio: Where an act remains the operating and substantial cause of an outcome, the defendant will still be liable.

Facts: After being attacked by a knife and subsequent medical treatment, the victim’s stitches reopened. Uncertain whether this was deliberate, or whether they re-opened naturally and he chose not to seek held. Held that this did not break the chain of causation as the original wound was still an operative and substantial cause of the death.

Question 11

R v G

Answer 11

Ratio: Set out test for recklessness. A person acts recklessly … with respect to i) a circumstance where he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.

Question 12

R v Hayward

Answer 12

Ratio: The thin skull rule means the defendant takes his victim as he finds him and is responsible for any particular damage caused.

Facts: Defendant chased his wife into the street where she collapsed and died because of a rare medical condition.

Question 13

R v Kimsey

Answer 13

Ratio: Substantial, for the purpose of R v Pagett, means more than ‘slight or trifling’.

Question 14

R v Latimer

Answer 14

Ratio: Established the doctrine of transferred malice - requisite MR can be transferred from one person to another such that it can coincide with the AR in respect of that other person.

Facts: Defendant aimed to strike a man with his belt. The blow ricocheted and hit a woman in the face, causing her serious injury.

Question 15

R v Mackie

Answer 15

Ratio: If the reaction is foreseeable it will not be a break in the chain of causation.

Facts: A man threatened his son, who was scared and ran away. The son fell down the stairs and died. Running away was a foreseeable reaction and so the chain was not broken.

Question 16

R v Matthews and Alleyne

Answer 16

Ratio: Jury may find intent if the ‘virtual certainty’ test for oblique intent is satisfied.

Facts: Defendants robbed a man and there whim in a river, where died. They knew he could not swim. The jury found oblique intent as death was a virtual certainty of throwing him in the river.

Question 17

R v Miller

Answer 17

Ratio: Where a defendant has created a dangerous situation, he can be held criminally liable for failing to take reasonable steps to remedy it.

Facts: Miller fell asleep with a lit cigarette. Woke up and realised that the mattress was on fire. Didn’t do anything about it, just moved to another room and went back to sleep. Held responsible for damage caused.

Question 18

R v Moloney

Answer 18

Ratio: Intention means aim or purpose.

Question 19

R v Nedrick

Answer 19

Ratio: Test for oblique/indirect intent = was the outcome a virtual certainty of the defendant’s act?

Question 20

R v Pagett

Answer 20

Ratio: 1. Defendant’s actions must be the operating and substantial cause of the outcome. 2. Interventions of a third party will only break the chain if they are ‘free, deliberate and informed’.

Facts: Defendant used girlfriend as a human shield while he shot at the police. She was killed and he was charged with her manslaughter.

Question 21

R v Pembliton

Answer 21

Ratio: For transferred magic to apply, the AR and MR must be in respect of the same offence.

Facts: Defendant tried to throw stones at a crowd of people. He missed and smashed a window. He was convicted of criminal damage but successfully appealed his conviction as he did not have the requisite MR.

Question 22

R v Pittwood

Answer 22

Ratio: Where the defendant has a contractual duty to act, but fails to do so, he can be held criminally liable for that omission.

Facts: Gatekeeper left a gate open on a railway crossing and a man was killed. He was employed to prevent people coming to harm and failed to do so.

Question 23

R v Smith (William)

Answer 23

Ratio: Generally, there is no criminal liability for omissions.

Facts: Railway watchman took a break, during which a man was hit by a train. Court held no liability.

Question 24

R v Stone and Dobinson

Answer 24

Ratio: Where the defendant assumes a voluntary duty of care for the victim, they can be held criminally liable for an omission.

Facts: They took in Stone’s elderly anorexic sister, Fanny, and agreed to care for her. They let her starve to death and were held responsible for it.

Question 25

R v Thabo-Meli

Answer 25

Ratio: Single Transaction Theory - Where the AR is a series of linked acts, having the MR at any point is sufficient.

Facts: Defendants thought they had killed a man, so they threw him off a cliff. He actually only died as a result of being thrown off the cliff.

Question 26

R v White

Answer 26

Ratio: Established the ‘but for’ test for factual causation.

Facts: Defendant put poison in his mother’s milk. She died of an unrelated heart attack in her sleep. He was not held responsible because he was not the cause of her death.

Question 27

R v Woollin

Answer 27

Ratio: Oblique intention can be found where the outcome is a virtual certainty and the defendant realised it was.

Facts: A father shook his child and threw him across the room. He killed the child although he had not wanted or intended to.

Question 28

R v Hill

Answer 28

Ratio: Motive can be evidence of intention.

Question 29

A-G’s Ref (No.4 of 1980)

Answer 29

Ratio: If it is not clear which act was the AR, D must have MR for relevant crime when he does each of the acts which could constitute AR.

Question 30

R v Bailey

Answer 30

Ratio: Ignorance of criminal law is never an excuse.

Question 31

R v Smith

Answer 31

Ratio: Ignorance of civil law can be an excuse.

Question 32

R v Masilela

Answer 32

Ratio: Sometimes the act done with the MR can be viewed as causing subsequent acts.

Question 33

R v Roberts

Answer 33

Ratio: If the victim’s escape attempt is foreseeable by the reasonable man it will not break the chain of causation.

Facts: V was a passenger in D’s car. She was afraid of his unwanted sexual advances and so jumped out of the moving car. This did not break the chain of causation and the defendant was convicted of assault occasioning ABH.

Question 34

R v Williams and Davis

Answer 34

Ratio: If the victim’s escape attempt is foreseeable by the reasonable man it will not break the chain of causation.

Facts: Appellants gave a lift to a hitchhiker and tried to rob her at knifepoint. She jumped from the vehicle and died. Appellants were convicted of murder.

Question 35

R v Holland

Answer 35

Ratio: Refusal of medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation.

Facts: Deceased was attacked by H and suffered a number of wounds, including a severely cut finger. Deceased ignored medical advice and died of tetanus. The wound was the cause of death and so the defendant was liable.

Question 36

R v Kennedy

Answer 36

Ratio: A person who supplies a drug to another has not caused that drug to be administered when the other injects himself with it.

Question 37

R v Girdler

Answer 37

Ratio: In situations with no precedent, apply a common sense approach.