Cases involving Actus Reus, Causation and Mens rea

Airedale NHs Trust V Bland (1993)

AREA OF LAW: Actus reus

BRIEF FACTS: Tony Bland was a young supporter of Liverpool F.C. caught in the Hillsborough crush which reduced him to a persistent vegetative state, in this state for three years and was being kept alive on life support machines. His brain stem was still functioning, which controlled his heartbeat, breathing and digestion, so technically he was still alive. However, he was not conscious and had no hope of recovery. The hospital with the consent of his parents applied for a declaration that it might lawfully discontinue all life-sustaining treatment and medical support measures designed to keep him alive in that state, including the termination of ventilation, nutrition and hydration by artificial means.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE Withdrawal of treatment was an omission. There was no duty to treat if treatment was not in the best interests of the patient. Since there was no prospect of the treatment improving his condition the treatment was futile.

Alphacell V Woodward 1972

Area of law: Mens rea

Brief facts: The appellant factory owner was convicted of causing polluted matter to enter a river under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The offence related to an underground pipe which had become disconnected due to a blockage. The appellant was unaware of the pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent.

legal principle: Strict liability,

Callow v Tillstone 1900

Area of Law: Mens rea

Brief Facts: A butcher was convicted of selling unfit meat despite the fact that he had had the meat certified as safe by a vet before the sale. His conviction was upheld as the offence was one of strict liability and it mattered not how diligent he had been to ensure the safety of the meat.

Legal Principle: Strict liability

Cundy v Le Cocq 1884

Area of Law: Mens rea

Brief Facts: The appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person under s.13 Licensing Act 1872. The appellant appealed on the grounds that he unaware of the customer's drunkenness.

Legal Principle: Strict liability

DPP v Santa- Bermudez (2004)

Area of law: Causation

Brief Facts: police wanted to conduct a search, man complied emptied pockets, breast pocket exposed syringe, police pricked finger on it, he smiled and knew.

Legal Principle: omission and lack of duty of care.

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1968)

Area of Law: Causation

Brief Facts: Fagan was sat in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. Fagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Fagan swore at him and refused to move vehicle and turned the engine off. Fagan was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Fagan subsequently appealed the decision.

Legal Principle: Assault

Gammon Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1984)

Area of Law: Mens rea

Brief Facts: The contractor, project manager and site agent for building works in Hong Kong were charged with substantially deviating from approved plans which was likely to cause risk of injury to any person or damage to any property contrary sections.

Legal principle: Strict liability

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)

Area of Law: Mens rea

Brief Facts:In the case the defendant served a a lottery ticket to a person that was under age. Although the defendant did think that the purchaser was over the age of 16 as he appeared to look over this age. Just under 50 percent of cases are to do with strict liability and are normally minor cases.

Legal Principle: what is established as strict liability

Hill v Baxter (1958)

Area of Law: Mens rea and automatism

Brief Facts:The defendant (B) was charged with dangerous driving. He claimed to have no memory from an early point in his journey to immediately after the incident. He contended that he had been overcome by a sudden illness and was therefore not liable under criminal law.

Legal principle: Road Traffic Act 1930

Lim Chin Aik v The Queen (1963)

Area of Law: Mens rea

Brief Facts: The defendant met a girl under sixteen years of age in a street, and induced her to go with him to a place at some distance, where he seduced her, and detained her for some hours. He then took her back to where he met her and she returned home to her father.

Legal Principle: Strict liability, cause of public safety

Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986)

Area of Law: Strict Laibilty

Brief Facts: The appellant, a pharmacist was convicted of an offence under s.58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. The appellant had allowed prescription drugs to be supplied on production of fraudulent prescriptions whereby a doctor’s signature had been copied. The appellant was not party to the fraud and had no knowledge of the forged signatures and believed the prescriptions were genuine.

Legal Principle: strict liability upheld.