Law Cases Flashcards

1
Q

What is the case of R v White

A

The defendant attempted to kill his mother by poisoning her evening drink, but medical evidence revealed she died of a heart attack, not the poison. He admitted planning to administer poison over time rather than kill with a single dose. The court applied the “but for” test of causation, determining that the defendant’s actions were not the cause of death. Despite this, he was convicted of attempted murder due to his intention and actions toward committing the crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the case of R v Pagett

A

The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield as he shot at armed policemen. The police fired back, and girlfriend was killed.

(The Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant’s actions must be operating on the victim at the time that the liability arises)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the case of R v Hughes

A

The defendant (D), who was uninsured and lacked a full driving licence, was involved in an accident caused by the victim, who was under the influence of heroin. The victim later died from their injuries. Although D’s driving was faultless, he was initially convicted of causing death by driving uninsured and unlicensed. The Supreme Court quashed the conviction, ruling that D was not legally the cause of the accident, as merely being on the road without proper documentation does not equate to causing a death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the case of R v Kimsey

A

Kimsey (K) and Osbourne (O) were driving at high speeds in close proximity when O lost control of their car, collided with K’s car, and veered into oncoming traffic, resulting in an accident. K admitted to participating in a chase but denied attempting to overtake before the crash. Expert evidence indicated that O had lost control before the collision. K sought an extension of time to appeal against their conviction and sentence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the case of R v Smith

A

A soldier stabbed a comrade during a fight at an army barracks. The victim was dropped twice en route to the hospital and received negligent medical treatment, including a failure to diagnose a punctured lung. The victim died, and the defendant was convicted of murder. On appeal, the defendant argued that the victim would have survived but for the medical negligence and that his confession was inadmissible as it was obtained under duress.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the case of R v Jordan

A

Jordan, a member of the United States Air Force, stabbed a man during a disturbance. The victim died in the hospital eight days later from broncho- pneumonia linked to the abdominal injury. Jordan was found guilty at first instance. However, the treating doctor disputed the cause of death and contacted Air Force authorities, prompting approval to gather further evidence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the case of R v Stone and Dobinson

A

Stone, a 67-year-old blind and partially deaf man of low intelligence, lived with his housekeeper and mistress, Dobinson, who was described as inadequate. They took in Stone’s sister, who suffered from anorexia nervosa and mental health issues, agreeing to care for her. However, her condition worsened, and she was later found dead in her bed in appalling conditions. The case involved their failure in voluntary care.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the case of R v Miller

A

D was a squatter who had spent the evening drinking before returning to the property where he was staying. He fell asleep with a lit cigarette in his hand, which started a fire. When D woke and saw the fire, he took no steps to extinguish it. Instead, he moved to sleep in a different room. Eventually the whole house caught fire, causing over £800 worth of damage. D was convicted of arson.

(Duty to avert a danger of one’s own making)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the case of R v Gibbins and Proctor

A

Daughter, 7, died of starvation. Gibbins was her father, while Proctor was his mistress. The couple lived together with Gibbins’ children. Proctor hated the girl and had a history of abusing her. Gibbins gave money to Proctor to look after his children and claimed that he thought the child was looked after. Both were convicted for murder.

(Duty arising from a special relationship)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the case of R v Dytham

A

D was a policeman. He stood by whilst the victim thrown out of a nightclub and was subsequently kicked to death about 30 yards from where he was standing. D took no steps to intervene and when the fight was over, told a by-stander he was going off duty and left the scene. D was convicted of misconduct in a public office.

(Professional duty)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the case of R v Pittwood

A

The D was employed by a railway company to operate the gate at a level crossing across the track. He lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass across, but then failed to put it back down before going for his lunch break. During his absence, a horse and cart crossed the track through the open gate and was hit by a passing train. Both the horse and cart driver were killed. D was convicted of manslaughter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the case of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent

A

Police were called to remove an intoxicated defendant from hospital. The police placed the defendant outside the hospital and charged him with being drunk on the highway.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the case of R v Baxter

A

D drove across a junction ignoring a sign and hit another car. D said he was in a confused state and had no recollection of the accident.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the case of R v Inglis

A

A son was in an accident and suffered catastrophic injuries. His mother (D) gave him a lethal dose of heroin but he somehow survived. One year later, she tried again and was successful. Her motive was to relieve pain and suffering.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the case of R v Moham

A

D was driving and was asked to stop by a policeman who had stepped into the road. D initially slowed down and then when 10 yards away accelerated towards policeman who jumped out of the way at the last second.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is the case of R v Woollin

A

D was annoyed as his baby son wouldn’t stop crying. He picked him up, shook him and threw him baby towards his pram. The baby missed the pram. The baby suffered a fractured skull and died.

(Murder)

17
Q

What is the case of R v Dica

A

The defendant, knowing he was HIV positive, had unprotected sex with two women, misleading them about the risks. He claimed they consented with full knowledge, but they disputed this. The judge ruled that consent was irrelevant, as the law does not permit consent to GBH in sexual activity.

Held: The case was remitted for a retrial (As they are suffering with HIV or some sort of sexual disease the court agreed it was no longer a good law meaning that who is not consenting to it will be liable under s.20.)

18
Q

What is the case of R v Abbas

A

D barged into a group of people outside a bar. He later punched one of the group. The victim fell, hit their head, suffered temporary loss of consciousness and had cuts and bruises.

D was found guilty.
Legal principle: Loss of consciousness is sufficient for ABH

19
Q

What is the case of R v Miller

A

The defendant raped his wife before her divorce hearing, throwing her to the ground multiple times and leaving her in a hysterical state. He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 OAPA 1861 but not rape, as marital consent to intercourse was still recognized at the time.

Held: ABH includes any injury interfering with health or comfort. He was found guilty of ABH.