WS1 General Principles Flashcards
Burden/standard of proof in criminal cases
Woolmington v DPP [1935] – burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove D’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and to disprove any defences which may be raised. Facts: D charged with murder, having killed wife by shooting her. House of Lords held that it was up to the prosecution to prove the D had killed his wife, not for the D to prove it had been an accident. Viscount Sankey:
“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty if the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt…”
Exceptions to rule that defendants do not have to prove defences?
Some exceptions where D has to prove a defence (e.g. insanity & diminished responsibility). This only has to be on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
What is the general rule for liability for omissions? What are the exceptions?
There is no liability for failing to act. Exceptions:
a) Special relationship
b) Contractual duty
c) Statutory duty
d) Created a dangerous situation
Special relationship: Family ties (statutory and common law duty)
a. Family ties – Statutory duty on parent to act to protect his or her child (s.1(2)(a) Children and Young Persons Act 1933) and R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) – Ds convicted of murdering a 7-year old child. Child had died of starvation. The first D, Gibbins, was the father. Court said as a parent he had duty to look after child, failed to do so, therefore committed AR of murder – killed human being by omission to feed his child. Second D was not the mother, but had assumed a duty towards the child by choosing to live with the father and by receiving house-keeping money from him;
Blood relation/assumption of responsibility.
b. Where D has assumed a responsibility/duty to V (R v Stone & Dobinson [1977] Court of Appeal – where 2 defendants took Stone’s sick sister to live with them. She died, 2 defendants convicted of manslaughter. Court also said there was a duty because Fanny was a blood relation to Stone, because she was living in Stone’s house and because both Ds had assumed a duty to act. Court said “this was not a situation analogous to the drowining stranger. They did make efforts to care.” Lane LJ. Therefore, seems that had they done nothing, they would have escaped liability [HEAVILY CRITICISED DECISION].
R v Ruffell [2003]
D who assumed a duty of trying to revive a friend who took drugs, was correctly convicted of manslaughter of that friend when he failed to care for him properly.
R v Smith [1979]
D charged with manslaughter. Wife gave birth, child still born, wife said not to get medical help, he didn’t but by the time she changed her mind it was too late. Jury unable to decide and so he walked free. Words of judge suggest if V capable of deciding own fate, the D should be able to be released from any duty to act established by the common law. [Also, indicates husband owes duty to wife. However, only a first instance decision, BE WARY]
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] - What were the facts and judgement?
Tony Bland injured at Hillsborough, persistent vegetative state for 3 years, doctors and parents apply to court to discontinue treatment. Doctor normally owes special duty to patient. On the medical evidence (no evidence of further conscious thought), allowed them to stop treating him.
Why was the decision in Airedale NHS Trust important?
- House of Lords confirmed doctors must seek court permission before withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (ALTHOUGH see Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust v S – permission impractical in some emergency situations.
- HoL confirmed if a patient has refused life-saving treatment, not only is doctor released from duty to act but he would be committing a criminal offence of assault if he did act – endorses R v Smith.
- Court only concerned with omissions. Doctors still cannot take positive acts for ending patient’s life.
Case which demonstrates criminal liability where failure to comply with CONTRACTUAL DUTY TO ACT?
(R v Pittwood – railway crossing gate-keeper failed to close gate and person killed. Manslaughter)
E.g. of Statutory duty to act?
a. E.g. as a car driver, you have to stop at red lights, display valid tax disc and stop after involved in accident (Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 170)
Is there a duty to act where the D has created a dangerous situation?
4) D has CREATED a DANGEROUS SITUATION, and has not REMOVED the danger created (R v Miller [1983] – squatter smoking and fell asleep, woke and noticed smoking mattress, got up & moved to another room. House caught fire.)
Can the actus reus be involuntary?
No. Liability will only accrue where the conduct is willed. Hill v Baxter [1958] – court gave example of swarm of bees. Under these conditions, someone could not be liable for careless driving.
Mens Rea: Direct intent. What is the definition?
where D’s primary purpose is to bring about a particular consequence, design or aim
Test for Indirect/oblique Intent?
Where an outcome was not D’s main aim, but an unfortunate by-product of his aim. Test for indirect intent (R v Nedrick test, as confirmed and refined by R v Woollin):
i. Was the consequence virtually certain to occur from D’s act?
ii. If yes, did D himself foresee this consequence as virtually certain to occur?
How did the indirect intention test develop before this?
Maloney - natural consequence?
Hancock and Shankland - natural and probable consequence?
Problem with Nedrick?
Nedrick is Court of Appeal authority. Therefore, could not overrule Maloney or Hancock and Shankland.
