Non-fatal offence cases

Mitchell (1983)

Principle: Actus Reus must be voluntary

Facts: D punched man in post office. Man fell into V who later died

Larsonneur (1933)

Principle: Some state of affairs don’t need voluntary Actus Reus

Facts: Found having entered UK illegally following deportation

Pitwood (1902)

Principle: A contractual duty to act exists

Facts: Railway crossing keeper omitted to shut gates, person crossing was struck and killed. Keeper guilty of manslaughter

Gibbins and Procter (1918)

Principle: Duty exists because of a relationship between victim and accused

Facts: Child’s father and mistress failed to feed baby, which died of starvation - guilty of murder

Stone & Dobinson (1977)

Principle: A duty voluntarily undertaken

Facts: Stone’s sister came to live with D. V became ill, unable to care for herself, resulting in her death

Evans (2009)

Principle: A duty voluntarily undertaken

Facts: 16 y/o heroin addict lived with mother & half sister. Evans gave heroin to half-sister who overdosed. D didn’t seek medical help

Dytham (1979)

Principle: a duty from an official position

Facts: D (police officer) witnessed attack on v, but didn’t intervene - drove away

Miller (1983)

Principle: Defendant created a dangerous situation

Facts: D (squatter) fell asleep in empty house - his lit cigarette started fire. D realised and left to sleep in other room, didn’t summon help / attempt to put out fire

Pagett (1983)

Principle: Defendant can only be guilty if the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ the D’s conduct

Facts: D took pregnant gf from her home, police called on him, D came out holding girl, fired at police, police fired back killing girl.

Hughes (2013)

Principle: Defendant can only be guilty if the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ the D’s conduct

Facts: D driving camper van, rounded corner, car swerved into van. V under influence of heroin, faced fatal injuries - D charged with causing death by driving without license & while uninsured

Kimsey (1996)

Principle: May be more than one act contributing to the consequence. Some of these acts may be made by people other than D

Facts: D in high-speed car chase, lost control of car, other driver killed. Court of Appeal upheld' D’s conviction for causing death by dangerous driving

Blaue (1975)

Principle: D must also take the victim as he finds him (Thin-Skull rule)

Facts: Young woman stabbed by D, needed blood transfusion - refused due to religion. V died, D convicted of murder

Smith (1959)

Principle: Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the D’s acts and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the D’s acts are insignificant

Facts: 2 soldiers fought, 1 stabbed in lung. V carried to medical centre but dropped on the way. At centre, staff gave artificial respiration - pressed on chest - made injury worse, V died. D still guilty of murder

Lamb (1967)

Principle: Actus Reus of Assault (Apprehend)

Facts: Two boys playing with a loaded revolver. Bullet was not adjacent to barrel, so no fear of violence. Boy killed. No fear of violence so it was not assault.

Constanza (1997)

Principle: Words can be the Actus Reus of assault

Facts: D sent over 800 threatening letters over a period of 20 months.

Ireland (1997)

Principle: Silence can be the Actus Reus of assault

Facts: D made a series of silent phone calls over three months to three different women.

Smith v Chief Constable of Woking (1983)

Principle: For assault, immediate means imminent not instantaneous

Facts: D broke into V’s garden, stared at V through window.

DPP V K (1990)

Principle: Indirect acts can form the actus reus of battery

Facts: D took acid from a science class and poured into a hand drier. V used it and sustained serious injury to his face.

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Principle: Force can be slight for Actus Reus of battery

Facts: D had V’s arm to prevent from walking away, woman became abusive - scratched D’s arm

Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)

Principle: Force can be slight for the AR of battery

Facts: D was mistaken for another man, officer took hold of D’s arm – battery

Thomas (1985)

Principle: Touching a person’s clothing is akin to touching them

Facts: D touched V skirt but not touch V directly

T V DPP (2003)

Principle: Temporary loss of consciousness can be ABH

Facts: V was chased and fell, was kicked by D, V momentarily lost consciousness, remembered nothing until awoken by officer

Chan Fook (1994)

Principle: Psychiatric injury can be ABH

Facts: D interrogated V, V struck several times. D locked V in room and threatened further violence if ring not returned. V tried to escape through window, hurt in process

DPP v Smith (Michael) (2006)

Principle: Cutting of hair can be ABH

Facts: D and V argue, D pins down V and cuts off her ponytail

JJC V Eisenhower (1983)

Principle: Internal bleeding does not constitute a wound

Facts: V shot in eye with shotgun pellet. No break in the skin, though caused burst blood vessel. As there was no cut, it was held that there was no wound.

Burstow (1997)

Principle: Serious psychiatric injury can constitute GBH

Facts: D harassed V (phone calls etc). V suffered severe depression

Bollom (2004)

Principle: Severity of injuries assessed based on V’s age and health

Facts: 7 month old baby suffered bruising on her abdomen, arms and legs as a result of D’s actions.

Dica (2004)

Principle: Transmitting HIV is GBH

Facts: D did not inform V’s that he was HIV positive and passed on the infection

Morrison (1989)

Principle: S.18 resisting arrest = intent, subsequent injury can be recklessness

Facts: Police officer held D whilst placing him under arrest. D dived through window which badly cut officer

Taylor (2009)

Principle: Intent to wound not enough for s.18

Facts: V found with scratches and stab wound in his back

Cheshire (1991)

Principle: Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the D’s acts and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the D’s acts are insignificant

Facts: D shot V in thigh and stomach, V needed surgery, developed breathing problems and given tracheotomy. 2 months after, V died from rare complications by tracheotomy. D still liable for V’s death

Jordan (1956)

Principle: Medical treatment is unlikely to break the chain of causation unless it is so independent of the D’s acts and ‘in itself so potent in causing death’ that the D’s acts are insignificant

Facts: V stabbed in stomach, was treated in hospital and wounds were healing, given antibiotic but suffered allergic reaction. One doctor stopped use of antibiotic, next day another ordered a large dose of antibiotic to be given. V died, doctor held to be in intervening at which caused death - D not guilty of murder

Malcherek (1981)

Principle: Switching off a life-support machine by a doctor when decided that the V is brain-dead does not break the chain of causation

Facts: D stabbed wife in stomach, V put on life-support machine. After tests showed she was brain-dead, machine was switched off. D was convicted, Court of Appeal upheld his conviction

Roberts (1972)

Principle: If D causes V to react in a foreseeable way, then any injury to V will be considered to have been caused by the D

Facts: Girl jumped from car to escape D’s sexual advances. Car was travelling between 20-40mph, V injured from jump - D held liable

Kennedy (2007)

Principle: If D causes V to react in a foreseeable way, then any injury to V will be considered to have been caused by the D

Facts: D supplied class A drug to friend who died taking it. V had choice, knowing the facts, to inject or not. The heroin was self-administered, not jointly. D did not cause drug to be administered/taken, so did not cause death of V

Marjoram (2000)

Principle: If D causes V to react in a foreseeable way, then any injury to V will be considered to have been caused by the D

Facts: Several including D shouted abuse & kicked V’s hotel door. Door was forced open, V fell from window, suffered serious injury. D’s conviction for GBH upheld by Court of Appeal

Mohan (1975)

Principle: Defined direct intention - desire to bring about a particular consequence

Facts: D responded to police officers request to slow down and then accelerated in the direction of the officer who had to dive to avoid being hit

Hancock & Shankland (1986)

Principle: Consequence more likely means foreseeability more likely means intent more likely

Facts: D’s wished to stop a miner from working and pushed concrete block from bridge onto road below. Driver killed

Moloney (1985)

Principle: Foresight of consequences is evidence of intention not intent itself

Facts: D and stepfather were drunk and competed to assemble and load a gun first. D shot stepfather

Woolin (1998)

Principle: Jury cannot find intention unless sure that death or serious injury was a virtual certainty and D knew this

Facts: D threw three months old baby toward pram and frustration, killing child

Matthews & Alleyne (2003)

Principle: Foresight of consequences does not equal intention. Jury can find intention but does not have to

Facts: D’s dropped V from bridge into river. V said he couldn’t swim but appeared to be making his way to the bank. D’s left before V reached the bank. V drowned

Callow v Tillstone (1900)

Principle: example of strict liability offence (meat)

Facts: butcher offered unsound meat for sale even after asking a vet to examine the meat who then declared it safe

Cundy v Le Coq (1884)

Principle: example of strict liability offence (alcohol)

Facts: D charged with selling alcohol to an intoxicated person. Customer had been quiet in his demeanour & did not appear intoxicated

Fagan v MPC (1986)

Principle: continuing acts

Facts: D told to park by curb by police officer. In doing so, D drove onto officers foot accidentally. Upon being informed by officer, Fagan refused to move immediately

Adomako (1994)

Principle: example of negligence in criminal case (gross negligence manslaughter)

Facts: D was anaesthetist who failed to notice his patient’s oxygen pipe was disconnected & patient died

Church (1965)

Principal: coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Facts: D knocked woman out. After attempting to resuscitate, he believed her dead, dumped her body in river, V drowned – D convicted of manslaughter

Cunningham (1957)

Principle: established definition of subjective recklessness

Facts: D removed gas meter to seal money. Gas leaked next door, affected resident.

Gnango (2011)

Principle: example of transferred malice

Facts: D & ‘bandana man’ shot at each other in street. Bandana man shot and killed in innocent passerby, D convicted of murder as result of attempts to kill bandana man

Nelson (2013)

Principle: Defines assault

Facts: threatened to smash prison guards face in.

Miller (1954)

Principle: Defines ABH - Any injury or hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of V

Facts: D threw V to the ground several times