Law Cases Flashcards

Question

Belfon

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

– 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.

Answer 3

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

Answer 4

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

Answer 5

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

Answer 6

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

Answer 7

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

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

momentary loss of consciousness was sufficient for ABH

Answer 10

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.

Answer 11

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.

Answer 12

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

Answer 13

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.

Answer 14

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”.

Answer 15

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

Answer 16

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.

Answer 17

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.

Answer 18

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

Answer 19

contract imposed liablity for failure to shut a railway crossing gate

Answer 20

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

Answer 21

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.

Answer 22

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

Answer 23

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

Answer 24

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

Answer 25

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

Answer 26

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.

Answer 27

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).

Answer 28

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

Answer 29

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

Answer 30

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

Answer 31

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.

Answer 32

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.

Answer 33

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

Answer 34

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.

Answer 35

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.

Answer 36

– 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.