Case Law

R v Pitwood

Actus Rea - Omission - Under Contract

Employed to keep level crossing at gate shut when train crossing, failed to do so causing a crash and someone died

Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter

R v Gibbins & Proctor

Actus Rea - Omission - Familial/ Special relationship

D lived w/ 7 year old daughter, failed to feed child, child died

Father owed duty of care - guilty of murder ; Proctor had assumed a duty of care when she took money for food but did not give child

R v Hood

Actus Rea - Omission - Familial/ Special relationship

D was sole caregiver for wife, convicted of gross negligence manslaughter as failed to call ambulance

R v Nicholls

Actus Rea - Omission - Assumption of care

Mother died, Gran of V agreed to take care of V, V died of neglect. As gran assumed a voluntary duty of care and failed to fulfil this duty charged with GNM

R v Stone & Dobinson

Actus Rea - Omission - Assumption of care

D’s assumed care of sister, they both had intellectual and physical disabilities. Sister was ill and died, charge with manslaughter

R v Ruffle

Actus Rea - Omission - Assumption of care

D and V took a cocktail of drugs, V became unwell and became unconscious, tried to revive him, when this did not work, he left him.

Convicted of manslaughter

R v Miller

Actus Rea - Omission - Creation of danger

D squatting in building, was lying on mattress when cigarette started a fire. D left and went to different room. Charged with Arson

became liable when he realised danger created and fails to act to advert danger ; coincidence of actus reas and mens rea to create criminal liability

R v Gemma Evans

Actus Rea - Omission - Creation of danger

D supplied heroin to half-sister, she injected drugs and overdosed. D aware what was happening and tried to intervene but didn’t work

Guilty of GNM

R v White

Actus Rea - Factual Causation

D put poison in mothers drink, mother died. Charged with murder but mother actually died of heart condition. Guilty of attempted murder

R v Benge

Actus Rea - Factual Causation

Railway foreman misread time table of when tracks dug up. Train arrived, no track, someone died. D argued could have been avoided if other people did their job. Court found he was still guilt - other people also causes and independently liable but other factors do not undermine D was cause as well

R v Dalloway

Actus Rea - Legal Causation - must be blameworthy

D driving horse cart, not holding reins, child ran out on road and was killed. Held that driver was not guilty of gross negligent manslaughter but negligent in driving

R v Hughes

Actus Rea - Legal Causation - must be blameworthy

Driving without full licences and insurance - involved in fatal collision. V was responsible for crash as was intoxicated on on wrong side of the road. D not guilty

R v Roberts

Actus Rea - Intention from V - Foreseeable events will not break the chain of causation

D tired to molest V in moving car, V jumped out of car and was injured. V escape seen as reasonably foreseeable thus D liable

R v Kennedy (no.2 )

Actus Rea - Intention from V - Voluntary events will break chain

D prepared syringe of drugs, V injected themselves and died

HOL held not guilty

Cf R v Field

Actus Rea - Intention from V - Voluntary events will break chain

In relationship, V was older and had health conditions - D was manipulating. D had been drugging V. D knew that V was on medication and left out alcohol. V drank and died. Conviction upheld as left in dangerous situation

R v Rebo

Actus Rea - Intention from V - Voluntary events will break chain

Dangerous supplements supplied to young women who has psychological vulnerabilities. D advertised online dangerous chemicals and substances. V took them, became addicted and overdosed.

R v Blaue

Actus Rea - Intention from V - Vulnerabilities of V will not break the chain

D stabbed V, V need blood transfusion but refused due to religious reasons. D still liable

If more serious harm then intended due to characteristic of V, still liable. Take victim as found

R v Dear

Actus Rea - Intention from V - Interaction of 3 principles

D took knife and slashed V repeatedly. Taken to hospital and died a few days later due to blood loss. Conviction upheld as D conduct played significant role

R v Wallace

Actus Rea - Intention from V - Interaction of 3 principles

A couple split up, D attacked V with corrosive acid, V survived but left with life altering injuries. Went to clinic and took own life, D not charged with murder as broke chain.

R v Michael

Actus Rea - Interventions of TP - Voluntariness

Complicity

a mum gave nurse medicinde to baby, this was actually posion. IF the nurse gaver baby medicine in dose advice by mother - baby would have died. Nurse did not give medicine but 5 year old son gave it to baby. Mother charged with murder. Nurse and child = innocent agents as actions uninformed

R v Jordan

Actus Rea - Status of TP - Medical Care

V was stabbed and then died 8 days later. V was given antibiotics they were allergic too. Medical negligence - break in causation

R v Smith

Actus Rea - Status of TP - Medical Care

D stabbed V in fight. Whilst being carried to medical room, V was dropped twice - Doc then failed to give blood transfusion. D charged and held liable as stabbing was major cause of death. ( not does not need to be main cause but substantial)

R v Malcherek ; R v Steel

Actus Rea - Status of TP - Medical Care

V is brain dead, doc turns off life support, not a break in causation, Brain dead = dead

R v Cheshire

Actus Rea - Status of TP - Medical Care

D shot V who had a tractotomy in hospital. Died of rare but not unknown complication. D was substantial cause so still liable

R v Pagett

Actus Rea - Status of TP - Policing

D kidnapped girlfriend, after pursuit used her a human shield in poor light stairwell.  Any reasonable act done for self preservation and caused my D initial act does not operate as intervention even when lead to V death

Hyam v DDP

Mens Rea - Virtual certainty - Foresight of a high probability

D put burning news paper through a rivals mailbox which caused housefire. D intention was to scare rival, instead rivals children killed in fire.

HOL held: held conviction where oblique intention defines as foresight of a high probability

R v Moloney

Mens Rea- ‘Virtual Certainty’ - Foresight of natural consequences

D shot his step-father. Both drunk and playing a game of quick draw with loaded shotguns. D pointed gun directly at V.

HOL quashed conviction as not enough intent

R v Hancock & Shankland

Mens Rea- ‘Virtual Certainty’

2 striking miners pushed concert block from motorway bridge. Intend to scare miners who were not following strike - timing wrong and killed a person in car,

Conviction of murder following natural consequences formulation BUT on appeal quashed.

R v Nedrick

Mens Rea- ‘Virtual Certainty’ - jury can infer intent from foresight of a virtual certainty

Paraffin through letterbox - caused fire, child died. Conviction of murder quashed, jury not entitled to infer necessary intention unless sure death/bodily harm = certainty as result of D action and D appreciate that was the case

R v Woolin

Mens Rea- ‘Virtual Certainty’ - jury can ‘find’ intent from foresight of virtual certainty

D lost temper when baby began to choke and threw baby into wall. Claim he did not intend to do so but did accept risk of throwing baby.

HOL substituted murder charge for manslaughter as trial judge misdirected jury by using phrase substantial risk

R v Cunningham

Mens Rea - Subjective recklessness -  subjective recklessness preferred

D broke into gas meter to get money in doing so caused gas leak and women next door poisioned.

Court favoured subjective approach - only reckless if he realised there was a risk of gas escaping and consequently endangering someone as result of smashing but did it anyway

R v Stephenson

Mens Rea - Subjective reckless confirmed

D crawled into haystack, wanted warmth so started fire caused lots of damage. Defence that D suffered schizophrenia so not able to see risk as reasonable person - recklessness to be assed subjectively

R v Caldwell

Mens Rea - Introduction objective recklessness for obvious risk

D started fire in hotel, he claimed he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing and was endangering life.

Issue with Intoxication - not a defence to crimes with intent (ie arson) Defendants mindset must be judged by the ordinary standard - creating objective assessment

R v Lawernce

Mens Rea - Subjective Recklessness- risk must also be serious

Risk must only be obvious but be serious

R v G and Another

Mens Rea - Subjective Recklessness - OVERTUNRS CALDWELL

- Defendants, 11 and 12 ; camping in yard behind shop. Set fire to newspapers and threw under wheely bin. Fire spread to shop and cause £1 mil of damage. Charged damage to property by fire

- Was accepted they did not appreciate the risk it would not spread.

HOL overturned Caldwell

R v Latimer

Transferred Malice

D swung a belt at A who ducked and hit B, who was then injured, Found guilty of an offence against B

AG Refrence (NO 3 of 1994)

Transferred Malice - cannot be transferred twice

Foetus died after birth, D attacked pregnant women causing her to go into labour early, born alive and then died of complications, not liable for death.

Thabo Meli v R

Coincidence and Continuing acts

2 Ds planned to kill V, hot V over head and though he died so threw V off cliff. V actually died of exposure. Guilty of murder

R v Church

Coincidence and Continuing acts - Involuntary Manslaughter

D and V fought ; D strangled V until passed out. Thought V was dead so threw body in river. V was not dead and drowned. Still guilty of murder as even though no plan linked events, all one act.

Fagan V MPC

Battery - Unlawful person contact - indirect contact

D unaware parked car on police foot. Once this brought to D attention, told police officer to wait. Sufficient that it was a continuous act of assault and formed a MR at some point

R v Le Burn

D was walking home at night and knocked wife unconscious, claimed no intention to seriously harm her. Carried her away and then accidently dropped her fracturing her skull. Liability upheld using Thabo Meli

Airdale NHS Trust v Bland

AR of Murder - lawful killing - best intrest

Left with irreversible brain damage and in vegetative state, docs agreed nothing could be done to reverse condition

No unlawful to unplug life support

Re A (children) [2000]

AR of Murder - lawful killing - necessity

Conjoined twins, A dependent on B to life. If separated A could I’ve a normal life, but procedure would kill B. Necessity - benefit outweighed the consequences

R ( on the application of Purdy) v DPP

AR of Murder - lawful killing

Euthanasia is not lawful

R v Vickers

Murder - Constructive liability

Burglary, D seriously assaulted V to prevent being recognised. Later died due to injures. Murder conviction upheld

R v Cunningham

Murder - Constructive liability

Struck V with a chair intending to harm not kill but resulted in V death. Murder conviction upheld

R v Adams

Murder - Defence - Doctrine of Double effect

D used strong pain killers to ease suffering but alternated death, Doctor is entailed to do all they can to relive pain even if it speeds up death

R V Byrne

Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished responsibility - Abnormality of mental functioning

Reasonable man would term it abnormal

R v Ramchumb

Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished responsibility - Substantial impairment - meaning of ‘substantial

Need to show not trivial - strangled wife after catching her having an affair

R v Joyce and Kay

Voluntary Manslaughter - Diminished responsibility - explains the killing

Suffered from mental disorder and killed V while drunk ; mental disorder must be the root cause not the intoxication - intoxication excluded in consideration unless caused by mental condition

R v Jewell

Voluntary Manslaughter - Loss of Control

Extreme emotion or loss of rationality ; loss of ability to act in accordance with considered judgement or loss of normal powers of reasoning

Does not deny MR but explains why it exists

Andrews v DPP

Involuntary Manslaughter - base offence - Base offence must be properly unlawful

D maneuverer around a car dangerously fast and hit pedestrian and then almost hit a cyclist on getway

R v Lamb

Involuntary Manslaughter - All elements of an offence must be proven

the 2 D were playing with a gun and didn’t understand how it worked. One was killed. Conviction was quashed as no MR for base crime

R v Slingsby

Involuntary Manslaughter - All elements of an offence must be proven

Consensual sex, finger penetration, signet ring left on, left cuts inside V that got infected and she later died. Not convicted

R v Dawson

Involuntary Manslaughter - Dangerous to V

Foreseeability has to be what a reasonable person would have known

D robbed a petrol station with a fake gun, the attended died of a heart condition. Acquitted of Manslaughter

R v Adomako

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - very serious breach of duty

Anaesthesiologist, patient needed to be paralysed so required manual ventilation, tube not connected took him minutes to realised, should have been recognised within 15 secs

R v Wacker

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - Duty of care owed - Criminal law can have wider scope than Civil law

Smuggling people into country in container, air vent was shut, all 58 people died.

R v Kuddas

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - duty was breach

Chief at takeaway made meal, customer allergic to peanuts. Customer told server who did not pass on message. collective group does not know can not be taken as induvial. As chief did not know was not reasonably foreseeable.

R v Rose

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - breach involved a serious and obvious risk of death

Optometrist failed to sport fluid behind the eye of 5yr old girl., this would have been spotted by competent optometrist However at time not reasonably foreseeable that risk missed would cause death

R v Sellu

Gross Negligence Manslaughter - meaning of gross

Surgeon failed to operate on perforated colon. Jury needs to understand that the bar is a high one and conduct must be truly exceptionally bad

R v Ireland

Assault -Apprehension

Silent phone calls do constitute as assault, depending on the effects of the calls. In this case women got diagnosed with mental health conditions

Tuberville v Savage

Assault - violence does not need to be immediate.

D put his hand on the sord and made a threat. No expectation violence was immediate.

Smith v CS of Working Police Station

Assault - must be a imminent threat

D was in the garden of an elderly women with no lawful person just starring through her window. V did not know what D was going to do but clear of violent nature that could happen

R v Constanza

Assault - Violence needs to be imminent

Over 800 letters, vandalized house and stole laundry for over 2 years. V became depressed, argued that D behaviour was escalating and fear something could happen at anytime

DPP v K

Battery - Unlawful personal contact - indirect contact

D put acid in a hand dryer and then V used hand dryer and was scarred.

R v Martin

Battery - Unlawful Personal contact - Indirect

Caused a crush in the theatre - blocked door with metal bar, people where crushed and injured.

DPP v Santa-Bermudez

Battery - Unlawful personal contact - can occur via omission

D was getting searched by the police, asked if anything shar on him, said no. He had a needle in his pocket and police officer was pricked.

T v DPP

Actual Bodily Harm - what is it ?

injuries must be more than transient or trilling

R v Miller

Actual Bodily harm -what is it ?

martial rape case ; Any harm calculated to interfere with health or comfort of V

DPP v Smith

Actual Bodily harm - what is it ?

Cutting of ponytail is seen as ABH

R v Roberts

Actual Bodily Harm - MR: constructive liability - only required base offence MR

D tired to move V coat, D jumped out of a moving car

R v Savage

Actual Bodily Harm - MR: constructive liability - only required base offence MR

Intended to throw glass over V but it slipped and hit V

D v McFall

Sexual Offences - Consent

D kidnapped a women, and said he wanted to have sex with her, she feared for her safety to agreed. They had sex and she faked enjoying it. Held that as women did not agree to be kidnapped, D should have known V was not freely consenting to sex

R v Olugbio

Sexual offence - Jury to determine the meaning of consent

V submitted to having sex with V out of fear of violence as friend was in another room getting raped and beaten. Held V did not freely consent.

R v Doyle

Sexual Offence - Consent meaning

Judge should explain to jury the difference between someone who is agreeing due to threat or fear of consequences

R v Flattery

Sexual offences - Consent - nature and purpose

D claimed he was preforming a medical operation; no consent as deceived victim of purpose

R v Williams

Sexual offence - Consent - Nature and Purpose

Singing teacher had sex with 16yr old girl saying that it would help her sing better - No consent as V decided of purpose

R v Dica

Sexual Offences - Consent - Nature :Consent to being infected with STI

D did not disclose he has HIV. Distinction of act and consequences. consent to sex was good

R v Lineker

Sexual Offences - Consent - Purpose

D secured a prostitute, D failed to pay. Was originally convicted of rape but that was appeal as lie about payment does not undermined consent to sex

R v Devonald

Sexual Offences - Consent - Purpose

D got a video of V masturbating on a webcam, and planned to humiliate him with it. V had been deceived as purpose

R v Ekbekkay

Sexual Offence - Consent - Identify

Pretended to be boyfriend, V did not realise till they started

R v Ciarelli

Sexual offences -Evidential Presumption

Merely need to show the context does not undermine consent, not that it doesn’t exist

R v Jhetta

Sexual Offences - freedom in Consent

D repeatedly sent messaged to V claiming to be a police officer and they would be fined if sex did not continue

F v DPP

Sexual Offences - Freedom in Consent - Deception

Deception of internal ejaculation

R v McNally

Sexual Offence - Freedom in consent - decpetion

Gender deception

R v Bree

Sexual offence - Mental capacity

V was heavily intoxicated

R v C

Sexual offence - Mental Capacity

V had a mental diability

R v George

Sexual offence -Sexual - s.78 Principles

Indecent assault after removing shoes as he did this for sexual gratification. Was acquitted as conduct isled not indecent. *NOTE this is a case from 1956 so older

R v Court

Sexual offence -Sexual - s.78 Principles

Spanking a 12 yr old, did it over the clothes but when asked why, stated he had a fetish

R v H

Sexual offence - s.78 principles

If something 'may be sexual, then jury looks at circumstances/purpose ; D grabbing V’s clothing

R v Hill

Assault by Penetration - AR: penetration is sexual

Forced penetration while arguing

Lawrence v MPC

Theft - appropriation with Consent

D was a taxi driver, picked up a foreign student who spoke little English. Journey should have been 50p, gave driver £1, D said not enough so V gave wallet and D took £5

Absent of consent not a requirement of appropriation

R v Gomez

Theft - appropriation with Consent

Electrical store, asked for 17,00 worth of goods. Checks to be given. Checks stolen. D decided manager to taking. Court of appeal allowed, HoL had to review Morris v Lawerence. Clarified the appropriation does not require absent of consent

R v Mazo

Theft - Valid title of Transfer

D convicted of theft of property from her employer. Mainly checks, which she said were gift from employer. D took advantage of employer who suffered memory issues. Convicted was quashed on appeal

Receiver of valid gift can not be subject of conviction of theft

R v Hinks

Theft - valid transfer of title - clarified

D befriended a man with low intelligence and who was naïve. Took him out everyday and walked him to bank to take out maximum amount.

Convicted at trial and upheld at the court of appeal. The gift could be appropriate. Validity was not a question for the jury to determine and was irrelevant if it had been appropriated. HOL confirmed a valid gift can be subject to appropriation

Oxford v Moss

Theft - Property - Intellectual property

R v Rostron

Theft - AR: belonging to another - Possession/control

Went onto golf course at night to dive for ball in the lake. Although the club had no intention to retrieve, still belongs to the golf club

R v Turner

Theft - AR: belonging to another- Possession/control

D put their car into garage to be repaired, found their car outside with a spare so drove off without paying bill. Was property of the garage as in possession

R v Meredith

Theft - AR: belonging to another- Possession/control

D took car from police compound, in this case police did not have right to take it so not theft by taking it back

R v Woodman

Theft - AR: belonging to another- Possession/control

Unwanted scrap metal from site ; site had security fence to keep out trespassers. B/c of fence indicated intention to keep people out of site.