Ht2 Cases Fatla Offences Cases Flashcards
R V Jewell
the defendant had driven to the victim’s house where he had shot him twice and convicted of murder, he appealed claiming he had lost the ability of control.
R v Clinton
The appellant and his wife both suffered from depression for which they were on prescribed medication. He was experiencing financial difficulties and stress at work. He and his wife agreed to a trial separation for four weeks as she needed time out. She left him with the children and moved into her parent’s home. The appellant did not cope well with this and became obsessional and had been looking at suicide websites. Two weeks later she revealed to him that she was having an affair. He asked for her to come to the matrimonial home in order to tell the children together that their marriage was over. She agreed to meet. However he had arranged for the children to be elsewhere at the time she was due to come and he was heavily intoxicated. At the meeting he killed her by repeatedly beating her on the head with a wooden baton and strangled her with a belt. He then took photos of her naked body in various poses and texted them to her lover.
R V Doughty
The appellant killed his 17 day old baby son. His wife had had a caesarean and was told to take things easy so the appellant was looking after his wife and the baby in addition to carrying out all the general house hold matters. On the night of the killing the baby was constantly crying. The appellant used his best efforts to keep the baby quiet to no avail. He then covered the baby’s mouth to dampen the sound. He then stated that due to his excessive tiredness and the constant noise of the baby he lost his control and pressed down harder than he meant to at the time he was kneeling on the baby’s head. The trial judge did not allow the jury to consider the defence of provocation stating that provocation can not be founded on the perfectly natural episodes of a baby’s crying. The defendant appealed.
R V Lloyd
Lloyd worked as a chief projectionist at a cinema. Over a period of some months Lloyd took films from his place of work, gave them to Bhuee & Ali who copied them for distribution and gave them back to Lloyd who returned them to the cinema. The judge left the issue of intention to permanently to deprive for the jury to decide. They were all convicted with conspiracy to steal contrary to s.1 Criminal Law Act 1977 (liability requires proof of theft under the Theft Act 1968). They appealed contending that as a matter of law the issue of intention to permanently deprive could not arise in the circumstances so the judge was wrong to put it to the jury.
R V Golds
Golds admitted to killing his partner and prior to the killing he had sexually assaulted her. The question for the jury was whether he was guilty of murder or manslaughter by virtue of diminished responsibility under s. 2(1) Homicide Act 1957. The three medical experts argued that the conditions for diminished responsibility were satisfied. The judge allowed evidence to be admitted under s. 101(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003. Golds refused to give evidence as he argued that he was not in a fit state to do so. The judge directed the jury not to draw any adverse interference by the refusal and did not permit them to hear the opinion of the medical experts on Golds current mental state. The jury convicted the defendant of murder and he appealed the decision.
R V Wood
The appellant was an alcoholic who had been sleeping rough. He had befriended a group of alcoholics known as the breakfast club and had drunk heavily with them two days prior to the attack. After the second day of heavy drinking he was invited to spend the night at the deceased’s house. During the night he awoke to find the deceased attempting to perform oral sex on him. He attacked him with a meat cleaver and lump hammer killing him. The trial judge, in his direction to the jury, stated:
“Where a man becomes so drunk that he suffers, temporarily, from an abnormality of mind, he may also be acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility applying the same tests that I have outlined, but that verdict would only be open to you if you found it more likely than not that his consumption of alcohol was truly involuntary. A man’s act is involuntary if, and only if, he could not have acted otherwise. Giving in to a craving is not an involuntary act, even if it is very difficult to do otherwise. An alcoholic not suffering from severe withdrawal symptoms, who tops up his overnight level or who later chooses to accept a drink after he’s reached his normal quota, is not drinking involuntarily.”
R V Lamb
The two boys believed that this meant it would not fire. One of the boys pointed the gun at the other and fired. As he pulled the trigger the chamber turned and the gun went off killing the boy. The other was charged with unlawful act manslaughter.
R V Larkin
The appellant waved a razor about intending to frighten his mistress’s lover. He claimed his mistress, who was drunk, blundered against the razor and was killed when it cut her throat.
R V church
Sylvia Notts mocked the appellant’s ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped his face. A fight developed during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. He believed she was dead and threw her body into a river. Medical evidence revealed that the cause of death was drowning and she therefore had been alive when he threw her into the river. The trial judge made several errors in his direction to the jury and in the event they convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds of misdirection
DDP v Newbury and jones
Two 15 year old boys threw a paving slab off a railway bridge as a train approached. The paving slab went through a glass window on the cab of the train and struck the guard killing him. The boys were convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal dismissed the boys’ appeals. The boys appealed to the Lords with the following certified question of law
R V Amdomako
The appellant was an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an eye operation. During the operation an oxygen pipe became disconnected and the patient died. The appellant failed to notice or respond to obvious signs of disconnection. The jury convicted him of gross negligence manslaughter.
The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal but certified the following question to the House of Lords:
“In cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence not involving driving but involving a breach of duty is it a sufficient direction to the jury to adopt the gross negligence test set out by the Court of Appeal in the present case following R. v. Bateman (1925) 19 Cr. App. R. 8 and Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] A.C. 576, without reference to the test of recklessness as defined in R. v. Lawrence (Stephen) [1982] A.C. 510 or as adapted to the circumstances of the
case?”
