Law Cases Flashcards
whitely v chappell (1868)
-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
cheeseman
-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
Fisher v Bell
-displayed flick knife in shop window
offence to offer for sale
sign was an ,invitation to treat, not for sale
NOT GUILTY
literal rule
smith v Hughes
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
alder v George
-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
R v R
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
R v Miller
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
r v pagett (1986)
-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’
white(1910)
-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
Collins v Wilcock
CASE LAW- BATTERY
policeman wanted to stop prostitute to get her name
held- holding someone’s arm was enough for battery
DPP V K
boy put acid in a hand dryer
held- battery could be intent
ireland
D made silent phone calls to a woman over a period of time
held-no need for words
Assault
Smith
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
R V Prince
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
Callow v Tillstone
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
R V Taylor
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
R V Morrison
recklessness as to causing an injury
MENS REA
JCC V Eisenhower
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
Brown and stratton
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.
R v Bollom
17 month old child suffered widespread bruising
Held: injuries should be assessed according to Vs age and health – this was GBH.
R v Dica
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
R v Burstow
Victim of a stalker suffered severe depression.
Held: Psychiatric harm can be GBH
Savage
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.
R v Parmenter
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
Belfon
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.
Lamb (assault)
– 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.
Tuberville v Savage
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
DPP v Santa- Bermudez
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
Thomas
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
Haystead
D punched his girlfriend causing her to drop her baby.
Held: D was guilty of battery on the baby.
DPP v Majewski
Held – becoming voluntarily intoxicated via drink or drugs was reckless conduct and reckless enough to constitute the MR of common assault
Venna
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.
T v DPP
momentary loss of consciousness was sufficient for ABH
Roberts
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.
R v Larsonneur
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.
Winzar v CC of Kent
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
B v DPP
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.
Jordan
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”.
Smith
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
Malcherek
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.
Williams
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.
Dytham
public position required him to act as he was a uniformed officer and did nothing to stop a man being kicked to death.
Pitwood
contract imposed liablity for failure to shut a railway crossing gate
Stone and Dobinson
Voluntary acceptance of duty.
Allowed sick relative to live with them but did not get medical help and she died.
Held: convicted of manslaughter
Balfour v Balfour [1919]
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.
Howe (1987)
decided the D was guilty as the defence of duress was not available for murder.
Ratio decidendi
Brown 1993
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
R v Jewell
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
Ibrams and Gregory (1981) CA
an attack planned over several days was not a sudden loss of control.
Jersey v Holley (2005) PC
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.
Clinton 2012
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).
Mohammed (2005) CA.
bad temper should be disregarded (as should any other factors which lower the tolerance of D beyond that of a reasonable man
diminished responsibility cases
mental deficiency (Speake 1957),
pre-menstrual tension (Smith 1982),
chronic depression (Gittens 1984),
battered woman syndrome (Ahluwalia 1993)
R v Byrne (1960) CA
Abnormality of mind means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal.”
Adomako (1994)
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.
Finlay (2001)
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.
Edwards(2001)
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
lamb
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.
Church
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.
Goodfellow
– 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.
