A level law cases (personal)

LNER v Berriman

-railworker killed while doing maintenance work

- D not liable : v was not 'relaying or repairing'

- literal rule

Whitely v Chappell (1868)

- D uses dead persons name to vote

- act : offence to impersonate anyone entitled to vote

- dead person: not entitled to vote bc they cant

NOT GUILTY

literal rule

Cheeseman

- man flashes people in public ( inc police)

- law : flash 'passengers' ( someone pasing through town

_ police stationary when flashed not passing

- NOT GUILTY

literal rule

Fisher V Bell

- Displayed flick knife in shop window

- offence to offer sale

- NOT GUILTY : sign said 'invitation to treat' not ' for sale'

- literal rule

Smith v Hughes

- offence to solicit in public

- prostitutes solicited men from the balcony of their homes ( not in public)

- act designed to clean up streets & end prostitution

- new act created: they were convicted

- mischief

Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling (2000)

-taxi driver charged with 'plying for hire in any street' without a licence to do so

- vehicle parked on a taxi rank outside a station: private land, not technically a street

GUILTY: still likely to get customers

- mischief

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

-abortion act stated that 'pregnancy should be terminated by a registered medical practitioner [doctor] (1967)

- 1972: new procedure: terminated by doctor & rest of procedure carried out by a nurse

- LAWFUL: main aim of act was to end backstreet abortions

- mischief

R v Registrar General ex parte Smith

- Smith: adopted at birth, had killed twice, wanted to know/kill his birth mother

- Adoption act: 'shall...supply

- purposive approach, rule didn't intend to put natural mother at risk

- access denied

R v Sigsworth

- son killed mother to inherit her estate 'next of kin'

- court changed wording so he couldnt benefit from his crime

golden rule- broad

Adler v George

- act made it illegal to obstruct Her Majesty's forces in 'the vicinity of a prohibited place'

- D argued they were in the prohibited place

- in the vicinity adapted to include within the prohibited place

golden rule - narrow

Shaw v DPP (1962)

_ D published a ladies directory which advertised the names and addresses of prostitutes

- charged with conspiracy to corrupt public morals

- conduct criminalised by judges

- no statutory offence, accepted here was a common law offence.

R v R

-D convicted of attempting to rape his wife

- claimed it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife as she had given consent through marriage

- CoA upheld the conviction , declared that marital rape exemption didn't exist under English law

Woolmington v DPP

- D wife had left him & went to live with her mother

- he decided that he would ask her to come back & if she refused he would kill himself

- carried a sawed off shotgun in his coat, wife refused & he threatened to shoot himself

- he brought out the gun & it somehow went off, killing his wife, claimed it was a pure accident

GUILTY

R v Mitchell (1983)

- D tried to push his way into a queue

- 72 y/o man told him off & the D punched the man causing him to stagger backward into an 82 y/o woman

- the woman was knocked over and a few days later she died from her injuries caused by the fall

- D convicted of unlawful act manslaughter

R v Larsonneur

- D ordered to leave UK

- decided to go to Eire but Irish police deported her back to the UK

- she did not wish to come back & wasn't doing this voluntarily

- when she landed back in the UK she was immediately arrested and charged with being an alien of the state.

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)

- Ds took stones' sister (v) in who was anorexic

- V refused to leave her room & seek medical attentiom

-Ds made some effort took take care of her & then left her to it

- Eventually V died from starvation

- Ds guilty of manslaughter

- duty was undertaken voluntarily.

R v Evans (2009)

- V ( 16 & heroin addict) lived with her mother & older half sister (HS)

- HS bought some heroin & have it to V who self injected

- later it became obvious V had overdosed

- both Ds didn't attempt to seek medical help, instead they put V to bed hoping she'd recover, she died.

- both convicted of gross negligence and manslaughter

duty; relationship

R v Gibbins and Proctor

- father of 7 year old girl lived with partner

- father had several children from an earlier marriage

- he and his partner kept the girl separate from the fathers other children & deliberately starved her to death

- both convicted of murder.

- duty: relationship

R v Dytham (1979)

- D was a police officer who was on duty

- witnessed a man ( v) be thrown out of a club (30 yards from where the D was standing) and kicked to death by 3 men

- D took no steps to intervene or summon help

- when the fight was over, D told bystander he was going off duty and left the scene

- convicted of misconduct in a public office - guilty

- duty: official position.

R v Miller (1983)

- D living in squat, he fell asleep while smoking a cigarette.

- woke up to find his mattress on fire, did not attempt to summon help or put it out but went into another room and went back to sleep

- convicted of arson

- guilty: didn't take reasonable steps to deal with the fire

-chain of events

DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003]

- policewoman asked D before checking his pockets if he had any needles or any other sharp objects

- D said no

- PW put her hand in his pocket & was injured by a needle which caused bleeding

- D convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm

R v Pittwood

- railway crossing keeper failed to shut the gates

- person then crossed the line & was struck & killed by a train

- keeper guilty of manslaughter

- failed to fulfil his contractual duty

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)

- Bland: young man crushed by crowd in a football game tragedy

- this stopped oxygen getting to his brain and left him with severe brain damage

- he was in persistent vegetative state : unable to do anything for himself & unaware if what was happening around him

- fed artificially through a tube. like his for 3 years

- doctors asked for a court ruling to stop feeding him, court allowed doctors to stop, known he would die, done in his best interest.

R v Pagett (1983)

- D took pregnant gf from her home by force & held her hostage

- police called on him to surrender

- D came out, used gf as human shield while firing at police

- police returned fire, gf killed by police bullets

- D convicted of manslaughter: factual causation, 'but for'

R v Hughes

- D driving camper van when a car crashed into him (v)

- D driving was faultless

- van tipped over, killing v who was under the influence of heroin

- D charged with causing death by driving without a license & whilst uninsured

- HELD: supreme court squashed conviction, Ds driving didn't cause the death

R v Kimsey (1996)

- D involved in a high speed car chase with her friend (V)

- she lost control, killing v in the process

- evidence about what happened immediately before were unclear

- CoA upheld Ds conviction for causing death by dangerous driving

- ' more than slight or trifling ink'

R v Blaue (1975)

- young woman stabbed by D

- needed a blood transfusion to save her life

- she refused, she was a Jehovah's witness (does not allow blood transfusions)

- she died, D convicted of manslaughter

- refusal of the blood transfusion made the wound fatal but D still at fault

- thin skull rule - must take victim as you find them

White (1910)

- D put cyanide in his mothers drink, intending to kill her

- she died of a heart attack before she could drink it

- D not the factual causation of her death

-not guilty of murder but guilty of attempted murder.

R v Smith (1959)

- D stabbed another soldier in the lung

- V carried to medical centre, dropped on the way

- V then received treatment which worsened his injuries & he died

- HELD: despise the bad treatment which lowered his chance of recovery, D still guilty of murder

-stab wound was still operating & was the substantial cause of death.

R v Jordan

- V stabbed in stomach by D

- healing well

- given antibiotic & suffered an allergic reaction

- 1 doctor stopped using the antibiotic

- next day another doctor ordered a large dose of it to be given to V

- victim died from an allergic reaction

- doctors actions: intervening act which caused the death

- D not guilty of murder

R v Cheshire (1991)

- D shot V in thigh & stomach

- developed breathing problems

- needed tracheotomy

- V died from complications due to tracheotomy

- D still guilty : tracheotomy not sufficiently independent from gunshot wound

- didn't break chain

R v Malcherek (1981)

- D stabbed his wife

- she was put on life support

- after tests showed she was brain dead, machine was turned off

- D charged with murder

_ life support doesn't break chain of causation

R v Roberts (1972)

- girl jumped from a car in order to escape sexual advances made by Roberts

- car was travelling between 20 & 40 mph .

- girl was injured by jumping from it

- D liable for her injuries: reaction was foreseeable

R v Marjoram

- Several people ( inc D) shouted abuse & kicked the door of V's hostel room

- they eventually forced the door open

- V then fell/jumped from the window of the room & suffered serious injuries

- Ds conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm was upheld by the CoA

- Vs actions were foreseeable

R v Williams and Davis

- Hitchhiker jumped from Williams' car & died from head injuries

- car was travelling about 30 mph

- prosecution alleged that there had been an attempt to steal the V wallet which resulted in V jumping

- chain of causation broken, reaction not foreseeable nor proportionate to threat level, D not liable for death

R v Holland (1841)

- D deliberately cut V's finger

- cut became infected, v was advised to get it amputated

- V refused until it was too late & he died from infection

- D liable for his death

R v Dear

- D slashed V several times with a Stanley knife, severing an artery

- V didn't bother to have the wounds attended to & possibly even opened the wounds more, making the bleeding worse

- Ds conviction for murder upheld by CoA

- wounds were operating and significant cause.

Cunningham (1957) - subjective recklessness

- D tore a gas meter from a wall of an empty to steal the money from it

- caused gas to seep into the house next door where a woman was affected by it

- not liable: didn't realise there was a risk

Woollin (1998)

- D threw his young baby at its pram to stop it screaming

- baby missed the pram and hit a wall

- baby suffered injuries and died

- consequence was visually certain as a result of the act

- D liable

Adomako

- appellant was an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an eye operation

- during operation, oxygen pipe became disconnected & patient died

- Appellant failed to notice/respond to obvious signs of disconnection

- guilty

Latimer

- D aimed a blow at a man whom he'd just had an argument with

- belt bounced off the man & hit a woman in the face

- liable for her injuries

- transferred malice

Thabo Meli v R

- Ds attacked a man & believed they had killed him ( he was still alive)

- they then pushed him off a cliff

- V died due to exposure when unconscious at foot of cliff

- Ds guilty of murder

Fagan vs MPC

- D asked to pull over, when he parked he drove onto police officers foot

- at first D didn't realise but when he was told, he refused to move the car for several minutes.

R v Church

- D had a fight & knocked V unconscious

- thought she was dead

- dropped her into the river where the later drowned

- D guilty despite his original intent & the act being completely separate

- used for dangerous test ( sober & reasonable person would foresee some harm)

R v Constanza (1997)

- D had 800 letters & made a number of calls to the v

- V interpreted these letters as threats

- HELD: there was an assault & the V had feared violence

- letters can amount to an assault

R v Ireland

- D made silent phone calls to the V

- HELD: silence can amount to an 'act'

- the silence amounted to an assault as the b apprehended immediate/imminent violence

Smith V Chief Constable of Woking

-D entered a private garden at night & looked through the bedroom of the V

- she was terrified & thought he was about to enter the room

- D guilty: fear of what he might do was sufficiently immediate for the purposes of assault

Logdon v DPP

-D, as a joke, pointed a gun at a victim, who was terrified until she was told it was a replica

- V had apprehended immediate physical violence, and D had been at the very least, reckless as to whether this would occur

Tuberville v Savage

Man put his hand on his sword and said "if it were not assize-time I would not take such language from you"

- despite the act which made the V fear immediate violence (hand on sword) his words cancelled the assault. Showed violence would not be allowed

R v Light

- "were it not for the bloody policeman outside, I would split your head open"

- said with sword raised above Vs head

- determined to be an assault due to seriousness

Mendoza V Ghaidan

- the 'rent act' applied where a person who had the tenancy of a property died

- allowed unmarried partners to succeed the tenancy

- question was whether it applied to same sex couples

-HoL: 'did not apply' ( before human rights act)

- CoA: held the rent act had to be interpreted to conform to the European convention on human rights : allowed same sex couples to have the same rights as mixed.

DPP v k

- D , schoolboy , took some sulphuric acid from school lab into the toilet to mess with

- he heard footsteps & put the acid in the hot air dryer to hide it

- before he could remove it after class , another pupil used the dryer & was sprayed by the acid

-D charged with assault occasioning ABH

( common assault could be committed by an indirect act)

R v Thomas

- D touched the bottom of a woman's skirt & rubbed it

- touching someone's clothing while they're wearing it is equivalent to touching them

- therefore even touching the v's clothing can be sufficient to form a battery

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000)

( indirect act of battery)

- D caused a small child to fall to the floor by punching the woman holding the child

- D guilty - reckless as to whether or not his acts would injure the child

Miller

- stated that actual bodily harm is ' any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim'

R v Chan Fook

- harm includes injury to the nervous system & brain such as recognised psychiatric harm

DPP v Smith

- D had an argument with his gf

- he cut off her ponytail and some hair from the top of her head without consent

- he was charged with an offence under s47 AOPA 1861

- HELD: cutting of a substantial amount of hair could be actual bodily harm

R v Savage

- D threw beer over another woman in the pub

- the glass slipped from the Ds hand & the Vs hand was cut by the glass

- D had not intended to injure her & she did not realise there was a risk of injury

- intended to throw beer over woman : intended to apply unlawful force - sufficient for MR of s47 offence

JCC v Eisenhower

- V hit in the eye with a shotgun pellet

- did not penetrate the eye but did cause severe bleeding under the surface - not a wound

- wound must be a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin - surface & internal

Saunders

- GBH means serious harm

- doesn't have to be life threatening

R v Bollom

- 17 month old baby had bruising to her abdomen , both arms & legs

- D convicted of causing gbh

- bruising can amount to GBH

R v Dica

- D had unprotected sex with two women without telling them he was HIV positive

- infected both women as a result

- biological harm can be gbh

R v Burstow

- d carried out 8 month harassment campaign against his ex

- harassment consisted of silent & abusive telephone calls, hate mail & stalking

- caused v to suffer severe depression

- d conviction of s20 upheld

R v Parmenter

- D badly injured his three month old baby when he threw the baby in the air & caught him

- D said he had done this often with his slightly older children & didn't realise there was a risk of injury

- d convicted of assault occasioning abh

R v Taylor

- v was found with scratches across his face & stab wounds in the back

- photos showed no more than surface scratches, impossible to tell the depth of the wound.

- medical evidence did not help in showing whether the d had intended to cause really serious injury

- conviction for s20

Re A

- doctors separated conjoined twins knowing one of them would not survive

- lawful killing

R v Vickers

- intention to cause gbh is sufficient mr to prove malice aforethought

AG's reference ( no 3 of 1944)

- pregnant woman stabbed in abdomen

- child must exist independently from the mother to be a reasonable creature in being

R v Matthews and Alleyne

- Ds robbed victim and threw him into a river in the middle of a flooding

- Ds knew he was unable to swim

- V drowned

- Ds charged with murder

- virtual certainty that V would die by drowning

R v Byrne (1960)

- abnormality of mental functioning: must be so different from ordinary human being that it would be deemed abnormal

- byrne unable to control his perverted desires

- can't exercise self control either

R v Lloyd ( involuntary manslaughter)

- defines substantially as "not total nor trivial"

Di Duca

- CoA held that being drunk is a 'transient' state of mind

- there must be an abnormality of mental functioning for Dim Rep to stand

R v Dietschmann

- intoxication + pre existing abnormality of mental functioning

- if the abnormality was not enough on its own to substantially impair D then not applicable for DR

R v Wood (2008)

Alcholism can be considered as abnormality ( alcohol dependancy syndrome is a recognised medical condition)

- if drinking not voluntary the defence can be used

Stewart (2009)

- defence would not be available if the jury found that any of the appellants drinking was voluntary (e.g first drink was voluntary and then the D could not stop)

R v Jewell

- can't use dim rep to reduce a murder conviction down to voluntary manslaughter is its evident that the murder was planned

- had guns and ammunition in his car

R v Ahluwalia

- loss of control need not be sudden

- abused wife set husband alight

R v Dawes

-cant raise self defence if you incited the violence

R v Doughty

- D killed baby who wouldn't stop crying

- baby crying can amount to provocative act ( can reduce murder sentence)

R v Zebedee (2012)

- D killed father who was incontinent

- raised LOC but murder conviction upheld

- Jury can dismiss things said or done

R v Clinton

- sexual infidelity can't be relied upon as a qualifying trigger but can be taken into account as a third component

R v Baillie 1995

- revenge killing excluded in LOC

R V rejmanski

- can't use anger issues or personality disorder to raise LOC

R v Van dongen

- repeatedly kicked his V to death

- reasonable man may have lost control but would not have acted in the same or similar way.

R v Camplin

Reasonable test - would person of same age and sex lose their control in the same set of circumstances

Young v Bristol Aeroplane (1944)

1. per incurium

2. conflicts with SC decision

3. Conflicting CoA decisions

Balfour v Balfour (1919)

- Husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to wife

- at time of agreement couple were happily married, relationship later soured and husband stopped making payments, wife sought to enforce the agreement

- agreement purely social and domestic, not legally binding, husband won

Merritt v Merritt

- husband left wife for another woman

-husband and wife had a legal agreement where the husband would pay her £40 a month until mortgage paid off and then he would transfer his share of the house.

- he didn't and she brought about an action for a declaration that the house belonged to her

- distinguished from balfour v balfour as there was a legally binding agreement.

Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association

CoA decided a homosexual partner did not constitute to family under the rent act 1977.

- HoL reversed this decision

Edwards (2001)

- Ds allowed 7 year old daughter and her friend to play on the railway line

- said they'd warn them if a train came, children killed by train the parents hadn't seen

jury found them guilty of manslaughter

R v Wacker

_ D agreed to bring back 60 legal immigrants to england

-- D closed air vent & 58 of the immigrants died

- D clearly assumed care as he knew the safety of the immigrants depended on this own actions

- relevant that the Vs parties to illegal act

R v Bateman

- D was a doctor, attended a home-birth

- part of the woman uterus came away

- D did not end V to hospital for 5 days and she later died

- not negligent - must show such disregard for the life and safety of others that it amount to a crime.

R v Misra and Srivastava

- V had an operation on his knee

- Ds senior doctors responsible for post op treatment

- failed to identify or treat v for an infection that occurred post op

v later did , Ds convicted of GNM

R v Dias

- D heroin addict known for injecting heroin, V also drug user but not known to inject heroin

- D gave V heroin, v was ill & dying, D told passer-by to all ambiance & then left the scene

_- D had a duty of care not to supply and prep drug =s for V.

r v Lowe

- D failed to take care of a baby who died

- unlawful act manslaughter can't be committed by omission must be an act

R v larkin

D threatened a man with a razor

- a woman fell on the razor and died

- unlawful act need not be aimed at the v but but be objectively dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause some harm.

R v Goodfellow

_ d set fire to his flat causing 2 deaths

- unlawful act can be aimed at property but it must be objectively dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause some harm

R v Dawson

a petrol station attendant died of a heart attack when his petrol station was robbed

- sober and reasonable person have not recognised that the act of robbery would have caused the heart attack had they been unaware of the Vs heart condition.

R v Watson

- During a burglary the Ds physically abused the 87 year occupant - he later died of a heart attack

- reasonable person would've been aware of the V's frailty and risk of suffering some harm

R v Kennedy

- D supplied a drug to V who self injected and later died

- self injection broke chain of causation and D not guilty of manslaughter