Law Cases

Question 1

whitely v chappell (1868)

Answer 1

-used dead persons name to vote
Act: offence to impersonate anyone entitled to vote
-dead person is not entitled to vote therefore NOT GUILTY
literal rule

Question 2

cheeseman

Answer 2

-man flashes people in public (inc police)
law: flash ‘passengers’ (someone passing through town)
-police were stationary when slashed not passing therefore NOT GUILTY
literal rule

Question 3

Fisher v Bell

Answer 3

-displayed flick knife in shop window
offence to offer for sale
sign was an ,invitation to treat, not for sale
NOT GUILTY
literal rule

Question 4

smith v Hughes

Answer 4

offence to solicit in public
-prostitutes solicitated men from balcony of their homes (not in public)
act designed to clean up streets and end prostitution
New act created: they were convicted
Mischief

Question 5

alder v George

Answer 5

-act made it illegal to obstruct her majesty’s forces in vicinity of a prohibited place
D argued they were in a prohibited place
golden rule

Question 6

R v R

Answer 6

D convicted of attempting to rape his wife
-claimed it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife as she had given consent through marriage
CoA upheld the conviction, declared that marital rape exemption didn’t exist under the English law
retrospective law making

Question 7

R v Miller

Answer 7

D fell asleep whilst smoking a cigarette.
- woke up to find his mattress on fire, did not attempt to summon help or
put it out but went to another room and went to sleep
-Convicted of arson
GUITLY: didn’t take reasonable steps to deal with the fire
chain of events

Question 8

r v pagett (1986)

Answer 8

-D took pregnant gf from home and held her hostage
-police called on him to surrender
-D came out and used gf as a human shield while firing at the police
-police returned a fire and killed the gf
-D convicted for manslaughter
factual causation ‘but for’

Question 9

white(1910)

Answer 9

-D put cyanide (poison) in his mothers drink attempting to kill her
-she died of a heart attack before she could drink it
D is not the factual causation of her death
NOT GUILTY of murder but guilty of attempted murder

Question 10

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 10

CASE LAW- BATTERY
policeman wanted to stop prostitute to get her name
held- holding someone’s arm was enough for battery

Question 11

DPP V K

Answer 11

boy put acid in a hand dryer
held- battery could be intent

Question 12

ireland

Answer 12

D made silent phone calls to a woman over a period of time
held-no need for words
Assault

Question 13

Smith

Answer 13

D was standing in the Vs garden, staring through the kitchen window
held- this was assault. immediate harm does not mean instantaneous but could be imminent

Question 14

R V Prince

Answer 14

taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her farther. he believed ( on reasonable grounds) she was 18
GUILTY. knowledge of age was not required. therefore
STRICT LIABILITY

Question 15

Callow v Tillstone

Answer 15

butcher checked with a vet if the meat was fit to eat. He confirmed it was. Butcher sold it. It wasn’t safe and he was convicted
held: GUILTY despite being totally blameless
STRICT LIABILITY- NO FAULT LIABILITY

Question 16

R V Taylor

Answer 16

V was found with shallow scratches across his face and a stab wound in his back
Held intent to wound was not sufficient for s.18
MENS REA

Question 17

R V Morrison

Answer 17

recklessness as to causing an injury
MENS REA

Question 18

JCC V Eisenhower

Answer 18

victim was hit in the eye by an airgun pellet and suffered bruising and internal bleeding in the eye.
Held: not a wound
s.20 GBH

Question 19

Brown and stratton

Answer 19

the victim (a transsexual) went to visit his father’s market stall. Father felt humiliated and so he and the victim’s cousin hit the victim with a chair, breaking his nose, knocking out 3 teeth and causing concussion.
Held: a collection of minor injuries could amount to GBH.

Question 20

R v Bollom

Answer 20

17 month old child suffered widespread bruising
Held: injuries should be assessed according to Vs age and health – this was GBH.

Question 21

R v Dica

Answer 21

D had unprotected sex with 2 women without telling that he was HIV positive. Both women became positive.
Held - GBH can be inflicted by infection

Question 22

R v Burstow

Answer 22

Victim of a stalker suffered severe depression.
Held: Psychiatric harm can be GBH

Question 23

Savage

Answer 23

D spotted her husband’s ex girlfriend in a bar – they did not get on though had not actually met. D went across the bar an threw a drink over her. Unfortunately the glass slipped out of her hand and broke, cutting the victim’s wrist.
Held: guilty of s.20 GBH (later substituted for s.47 on appeal) Intention or reckless as to the possibility of causing some unlawful bodily harm.

Question 24

R v Parmenter

Answer 24

D injured 3 month old baby when he threw him in the air and caught him as he had done with slightly older children. He had not realised the risk of any injury.
Held: No need to foresee serious harm, just some harm for s. 20 but in this case guilty of s.47

Question 25

Belfon

Answer 25

D slashed victim’s face and chest with a razor – the court stated that in order to be convicted under s18 it was insufficient to show that D foresaw such harm as likely or had been reckless.

Question 26

Lamb (assault)

Answer 26

– D pointed an unloaded gun at the V, V knew this was unloaded
Held: no assault as D didn’t fear immediate and unlawful harm.

Question 27

Tuberville v Savage

Answer 27

had hand on his sword but said “were it not assize time I would not take such language from you”
Held: Words could prevent an act being an assault.
C.f. R v Light where words were not enough to negate the assault

Question 28

DPP v Santa- Bermudez

Answer 28

Facts – police officer asked if D had anything sharp in his pockets before being searched. He said no.
Held omitting to tell the police officer could amount to battery

Question 29

Thomas

Answer 29

Facts - touching clothing was enough – when a caretaker grabbed the hem of a 12 yr old girl’s skirt.
Held – indirect touching could be battery

Question 30

Haystead

Answer 30

D punched his girlfriend causing her to drop her baby.
Held: D was guilty of battery on the baby.

Question 31

DPP v Majewski

Answer 31

Held – becoming voluntarily intoxicated via drink or drugs was reckless conduct and reckless enough to constitute the MR of common assault

Question 32

Venna

Answer 32

Facts D was arrested for a public order offence and struggled violently with a police officer.
Held -He was judged to be reckless as to whether he harmed the police officer. This was sufficient for MR of battery.

Question 33

T v DPP

Answer 33

momentary loss of consciousness was sufficient for ABH

Question 34

Roberts

Answer 34

mens rea to cause a battery led to the girl jumping from the car and being harmed further. Therefore D was guilty of s. 47 ABH.

Question 35

R v Larsonneur

Answer 35

D deported from Ireland against her will and returned to UK. Charged with being an illegal alien as she did not have permission to be in the UK.
HELD – guilty despite having no voluntary AR and no MR.

Question 36

Winzar v CC of Kent

Answer 36

D was drunk and was removed from a hospital by the police and put on a roadside. He was then charged with being drunk on a highway.
Held: Guilty

Question 37

B v DPP

Answer 37

15 yr old boy asked a 13 yr old girl on a bus to “give him a shiner”. He thought she was older. He was charged with inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency under the Childrens Act 1960.
Held: Not guilty as it was a severe crime, it would require mens rea.

Question 38

Jordan

Answer 38

D had stabbed the victim. Wound was almost healed when the doctors gave him an incorrect injection and he died.
Held: not guilty of murder as the wound was not the operating and substantial cause of death as the medical treatment was “Palpably wrong”.

Question 39

Smith

Answer 39

D stabbed victim and punctured his lung. Victim died and D was charged with murder. D argued he was not liable as:
i) on the way to hospital he was dropped twice;
ii) The doctor failed to realise the severity of his injuries
iii) The treatment given was poor “might well have affected his chances of recovery”.
Held: guilty – the stabbing was the “operating and substantial” cause of death

Question 40

Malcherek

Answer 40

Victim was attacked so badly she was put on a life support machine. Doctors turned off life support machine
Held: D guilty of murder even though it was a separate act that killed her because the wounds were still the operating and substantial cause.
And…
In Cheshire rare medical complications did not break the chain of causation.

Question 41

Williams

Answer 41

Hitch hiker jumped from D’s car because D allegedly tried to rob him. The hitch-hiker died.
Held: Not guilty – the victims act was a novus actus interveniens.

Question 42

Dytham

Answer 42

public position required him to act as he was a uniformed officer and did nothing to stop a man being kicked to death.

Question 43

Pitwood

Answer 43

contract imposed liablity for failure to shut a railway crossing gate

Question 44

Stone and Dobinson

Answer 44

Voluntary acceptance of duty.
Allowed sick relative to live with them but did not get medical help and she died.
Held: convicted of manslaughter

Question 45

Balfour v Balfour [1919]

Answer 45

A husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to his wife. At the time of the agreement the couple were happily married. The relationship later soured and the husband stopped making the payments. The wife sought to enforce the agreement.Held: The agreement was a purely social and domestic agreement and therefore it was presumed that the parties did not intend to be legally bound.

Question 46

Howe (1987)

Answer 46

decided the D was guilty as the defence of duress was not available for murder.
Ratio decidendi

Question 47

Brown 1993

Answer 47

the ratio was that consent was no defence to sadomasochistic practices. Obiter they said that consent was a defence to tattooing, ear and body piercing and violent sports

Question 48

R v Jewell

Answer 48

D shot V at point blank range with a shot gun. He said he lost his self control but had been found in his car with a weapon, ammunition and a survival kit. Held: insufficient evidence to suggest he lost control.
loss of control

Question 49

Ibrams and Gregory (1981) CA

Answer 49

an attack planned over several days was not a sudden loss of control.

Question 50

Jersey v Holley (2005) PC

Answer 50

Holley and his girlfriend were alcoholics. She told him she had just had sex with another man. He picked up an axe, intending to leave the flat and chop wood. His girlfriend then said,“You haven’t got the guts”. He therefore hit her seven or eight times with the axe, killing her. Under S55(6)(c), her infidelity would be disregarded by the court when deciding whether Holley’s loss of self-control was caused by a qualifying trigger. However, her taunting his lack of courage would still be relevant.

Question 51

Clinton 2012

Answer 51

Sexual infidelity can not be relied upon on its own as a qualifying trigger, but its existence does not prevent reliance on the defence where there exist other qualifying triggers.

Where other factors count as a qualifying trigger, sexual infidelity may be taken into account in assessing whether things done or said amounted to circumstance of an extremely grave character and gave D a justifiable sense of being wronged under s.55(4)

Sexual infidelity may be taken into account in the third component of the defence in examining the defendant’s circumstances under s.54(1)(c).

Question 52

Mohammed (2005) CA.

Answer 52

bad temper should be disregarded (as should any other factors which lower the tolerance of D beyond that of a reasonable man

Question 53

diminished responsibility cases

Answer 53

mental deficiency (Speake 1957),
pre-menstrual tension (Smith 1982),
chronic depression (Gittens 1984),
battered woman syndrome (Ahluwalia 1993)

Question 54

R v Byrne (1960) CA

Answer 54

Abnormality of mind means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.”

Question 55

Adomako (1994)

Answer 55

Anaesthetist (D) failed to notice that an oxygen pipe became disconnected. The patient suffered a heart attack and died as a result of brain damage. It was submitted that a competent anaesthetist would have noticed this in seconds. D’s performance was described as “abysmal”
Held: HoL upheld Gross Negligence Manslaughter conviction.

Question 56

Finlay (2001)

Answer 56

Scout leader who took a group of children up Snowdon was acquitted of manslaughter because his actions, whilst not perfect, did not show such disregard to life as to amount gross negligence.

Question 57

Edwards(2001)

Answer 57

allowed their 7yr old daughter and friend to play on a railway line – saying they would warn them if a train came. The children were killed by a train the parents hadn’t seen. The jury found them guilty of manslaughter

Question 58

lamb

Answer 58

D and V were playing with a revolver. It had 2 bullets in it. Both men mistakenly thought that the bullet had to be in the chamber opposite the barrel. D pulled trigger and killed his friend.
Held: act not unlawful as pointing a gun is not illegal; the victim was not in fear (assault). Therefore no criminal offence and appeal against manslaughter conviction was allowed.

Question 59

Church

Answer 59

The unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm resulting therefrom, albeit not serious.

Question 60

Goodfellow

Answer 60

– Facts: D set fire to his council house. He planned that it would be blamed on his neighbour throwing a fire bomb and as a result his family would be moved to other accommodation. He intended that the adults would rescue the children and all would escape. Unfortunately the fire spread too quickly and 3 were trapped and died.
In this case he committed an unlawful act which led to death but he also created an obvious and serious risk of death or serious injury, recognised the risk and continued recklessly to take it. In other words he had been grossly negligent.