murder cases Flashcards
R v woolin (1999)
- INDIRECT INTENTION
- FORESIGHT OF CONSEQUENCES TEST
woolin threw his baby towards a pram but the baby hit a wall and died.
R v nedrick (1986)
- INDIRECT INTENTION
D poured paraffin in a letter box and set it on fire. D didn’t directly intend to kill anybody, but his actions were foreseeable. Direct intent was to scare his female neighbour
R v Matthew and Alleyne (2003)
- INDIRECT INTENTION
d pushed v from a bridge over a river; V fell 25 ft into the river and drowned. d knew he couldn’t swim.
it was a virtual certainty
R v mohan (1975)
- DIRECT INTENTION
A police officer ordered D to stop his car. D pressed the accelerator. D nearly hit the police officer, the police officer had to move away. D had the direct intention when putting his foot on the accelerator
R v Jordan (1956)
- LEGAL CAUSATION
V was stabbed in stomach, hospital treatment →> wound’s healing well
• Suffered an allergic reaction due to being given an antibiotic; next day another doctor gave a large dose of the antibiotic
• V died due to an allergic reaction => doctor’s actions are the intervening act => D was not guilty of murder
R v Smith (1961)
- LEGAL CAUSATION
Two soldiers had a fight => on is stabbed V was carried to hospital; medical staff gave him artificial respiration by pressing his chest = injury worsened
• Smith was guilty because the wound on V’s lung was still ‘operating’ (not healed up) and it was the substantial cause of V’s death
R v Vickers (1957)
- IMPLIED MALICE
D broke into the cellar of a local sweet shop. D was aware that the old lady who ran the shop was deaf; old lady came in the cellar + saw D
• D hit her several times with his fists and kicked her once in the head => V died
• Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for murder
• CA pointed out that where D intends to inflict grievous bodily harm and V dies => always sufficient in English law to imply malice aforethought
DPP v Smith (1961)
- IMPLIED MALICE
Smith was ordered by a police constable to stop his car which contained stolen goods; S accelerated instead
• The police constable jumped onto the car, but fell off and was killed by another oncoming car after S violently swerved the car
• Smith was convicted of murder and appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal
DPP v Smith (1961)
- IMPLIED MALICE
Smith was ordered by a police constable to stop his car which contained stolen goods; S accelerated instead
• The police constable jumped onto the car, but fell off and was killed by another oncoming car after S violently swerved the car
• Smith was convicted of murder and appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal
R v Blaue (1975)
- THIN SKULL RULE
D stabs a young woman, who is a Jehovah Witness => she needs blood transfusion
• Religion prohibits her blood transfusion => she dies (being a Jehovah Witness made it more fatal)
• D’s guilty because he has to take V as he found her (had to respect religion)
R v Thabo Meli
(1954)
- CONTEMPORANEOUS ACT (transaction theory)
D wants to kill v = MR
• V was in the back of a van + D attacks him with a baseball bat
• V is unconscious; D thinks he’s dead; still has MR; D throws V off a cliff
• V not dead but later dies of exposure to the elements (water, wind, sun) => act was formed
R v Clegg (1995)
- UNDER THE KINGS PEACE
A British Army officer was in Belfast
He shot a teenager with his last of the 4 bullets he had fired whilst the teenager had been driving a stolen car
Court held that D had used force without a lawful purpose
Conviction was later overturned
R v Gibbins and Proctor
(1918)
- KILLING THROUGH AN OMMISION
Father had to look after his 7-year-old daughter
• Locked her in a basement, didn’t feed
her
• Girl died => father had failed to carry out his duty of parenting => was liable
R v Roberts (1972)
- V’s OWN ACTIONS
Girl jumped from a car (driving between
20-40 mph) in order to escape from D’s sexual advancements
D was held liable for her injuries
ABH under s47 of Offences Against the Person Act 1861
• V’s actions were reasonable + foreseeable
R v Williams (1992)
- V’s OWN ACTIONS
A hitch-hiker jumped from D’s car and died from head injuries caused by his head hitting the ground
D attempted to rob V (steal his wallet)
Car was travelling at 30 mph
• V’s act had to be reasonably foreseeable and had to be proportionate to the threat
V’s actions broke the chain of events
