Rules and theory in criminal law Flashcards
Lesson 17
What 2 principles does the case of R v Brown (1994) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: 1) that consent is not a defence to any form of assault.
2) that it is in the interest of society to not want people to harm themselves (same reason for drugs offences)
Brief facts: sadomasochists found guilty under OAPA (1861) despite giving consent.
What case supports the principle that consent is not a defence to any form of assault and for paternalistic law as a whole?
R v Brown (1994)
What principle does the case of R v Wilson (1997) support and what are the brief facts?
Also what case does it contrast with?
Principle: That branding your spouse with consent is not assault.
Facts: D branded wife’s arse with consent. Initially guilty due to R v Brown (1994) however appeal was successful-alternatively considered an act of personal adornment like getting a tattoo.
Name 2 cases that support the principle that an ‘act must be causative’
R v Cheshire (1991)
R v Dear (1996)
What principle does the case of R v Cheshire (1991) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: that an act must be causative
Facts: D shot V-whist V in hospital died of complications arising from surgery. D found guilty of murder.
What principle does the case of R v Dear (1996) support and what are the brief facts?
Principle: that an act must be causative.
Facts: D slashed V. V died days later. D appealed saying V allowed wounds to reopen which constituted suicide-appeal dismissed.
Under what 4 circumstances will an omission constitute an actus reus?
A) contractual-duty to act
R v Pittwood (1902)
B) Statute-makes it an offence to fail to act
S170 Road Traffic Act (1988)
C) Relationship-moral obligation established from a particular relationship
R v Gibbins (1918)
D) Previous acts-created a potentially dangerous situation
R v Miller (1983)
What case supports the principle that failing to act under contractual duty constitutes an actus reus?
Give brief facts
R v Pittwood (1972)
Facts: level crossing guard failed to close gate-collision between train and vehicle occurred.
What principle does the case of R v Pittwood (1972) support and what are the brief facts?
Omission: contractual duty-failing to act under contractual duty constitutes mens rea
Facts: level crossing guard failed to close gate-collision between train and vehicle occurred.
What statute supports the principle that failing to act under guidance of a statue constitutes an actus reus?
Give brief details
S170 Road Traffic Act (1988)
Details: reporting a road accident to police is mandatory
What principle does the statute of S170 Road Traffic Act (1988) support?
Give brief details
Omission: That failing to act under the guidance of a statute constitutes an actus reus.
Details: reporting a road accident to police is mandatory
What case supports the principle that ‘certain relationships’ can create an obligation and therefore an actus reus in failing to act?
Give brief facts
R v Gibbons (1918)
Facts: Mother failed to feed child
What principle does the case of R v Gibbons (1918) support regarding omissions that constitute an actus reus?
Give brief facts
Omission: relationships
Facts: Mother failed to feed child
What case supports the principle that ‘previous acts’ can constitute an actus reus regarding omissions?
Give brief facts
R v Miller (1983)
Facts: D negligently set fire to mattress-failed to extinguish it-charged with arson
What principle does the case of R v Miller (1983) support regarding omissions that constitute an actus reus?
Give brief facts
Omission: previous acts that create a potentially dangerous situation
Facts: D negligently set fire to mattress-failed to extinguish it-charged with arson
With regards to mens rea, what two cases are examples of ‘intent’?
R v Moloney (1985) (drunk step son shoots dad)
R v Woollin (1998) (dad who threw baby)
What level of mens rea does the case of R v Moloney (1985) demonstrate?
Give brief facts
Level: (Oblique) Intent
Facts: Drunk father shot dead by drunk step son-did not intend death but foresaw a possibility-oblique intent-charged with manslaughter.
What level of mens rea does the case of R v Woollin (1998) demonstrate?
Give brief facts
Level: (Oblique) Intent
Facts: D threw baby into cot but instead V hit wall and died. D did not intend result but was aware of risk-guilty of manslaughter.
With regards to mens rea, what case is an example of ‘recklessness’?
Give brief facts.
R v Cunningham (1957)
Facts: D ripped gas meter from wall to steal money-injured neighbour. Charged under OAPA 1861.
What level of mens rea does the case of R v Cunningham (1957) demonstrate?
Give brief facts.
Intent: Recklessness
Facts: D ripped gas meter from wall to steal money-injured neighbour. Charged under OAPA 1861.
With regards to mens rea, what 3 cases are an example of ‘gross negligence’?
R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)-D’s failed to seek medical help for sick relative living with them
R v Prentice (1994)-electrician wired house wrong and V electrocuted
R v Adomako (1995)-medical professional failed to maintain equipment during an operation
What level of mens rea does the case of R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) demonstrate?
Give brief facts.
Intent: Gross negligence
Facts: D’s failed to seek medical assistance for sick relative that was living with them.
What level of mens rea does the case of R v Prentice (1994) demonstrate?
Give brief facts.
Intent: Gross negligence
Facts: Electrician wired up a central heating system wrong and caused death by electrocution.
What level of mens rea does the case of R v Adomako (1995) demonstrate?
Give brief facts.
Intent: Gross negligence
Facts: D was medical professional who negligently allowed air tubes to become disconnected during an operation.
