criminal law key cases

Moloney

Mens rea

• direct intention

  • should be left to the jury to decide

Cunningham

Mens rea

• recklessness

  • Subjective test

    1. D aware of risk

    2. D aware but went ahead with conduct anyway

Special relationships cases

Downes- parental

Smtih- spouses

Voluntary presumptions of responsibility

Stones and Dobinson - Agreed to take in ill sister

Airedale - doctors and patients

Ruffel- D began to revive V

Pittwood

Contractual duty to act

• Negligent level crossing manager

Dytham

Public office creates duty to act

• Police officer failed to intervene in fight

Miller

Creation of a dangerous situation

• Homless man// cigarette// arson

Statutory enforced duties

Road Traffic Act 1998

Terrorism Act 2000

• duty to disclose information s19

White

But for test

• poisoned mothers tea

Kimsey

Legal causation

• D must have acted above minimal effort to ensure not accidental

Roberts

Victims break chain of causation with unreasonable acts

Kennedy no.2

Victims acts that break the chain of causation must be free and voluntary

Pagett

Third party may break the chain of causation with ‘free, voluntary and informed act’

Blaue

Take your victims as you find them

Larsonneur

State of affairs crimes need no mens reas

French woman illegally in UK

Hancock v Shankland

The greater probability of a consequence the more likely it was foreseen

Woolin

test for mens rea

• consequence must be virtually certain and D must have appreciated this

R v G and another

D must have

• percieved the risk

• caused injurious result

• been consciously reckless

Adamako

Negligence

• D failed to notice oxygen tube was detached

• this goes beyond recklessness

Thabo v Meli

Doctrine of transferred malice

• D thought he killed v

• D then through v off a cliff

• V actually died after the cliff

• D still liable for murder as he held intent and mens rea

Latimer

Doctrine of transferred malice

• D injured C while aiming for X

Fagan

continuing act theory

• drove onto officers foot by accident then refused to move

R v M

reasonable man test of rape

DPP v Morgan

Rape: mistaken belief no longer needs to be reasonable

Kaitamaki

Sex is a continuing act so consent can be withdrawn at any time

Olugboja

There is a difference between consent and submission

consent must be freely made

Doyle

Consent may involve submission but there is a difference between free and out of fear

R v C [2012]

Agreement means informed consent

R v C [2009]

Consent depends on maturity

Ciccarelli

Rebuttable presumption if C was unconscious

Linekar

Irrebuttable A person will not have consented if they were decieved as to the nature of the act

Elbekay

Irrebuttable presumption of rape if D intentionally impersonated someone D knows personally

Konzani

Non disclosure about HIV status is not rape

Assange

Lying about HIV status is rape

Lang

C must be coherent of their situation to consent

Malone

There is an absence of consent if C is physically unable to resist

Kamki

Consent may dissapear well before unconsciousness

Atakpu

you cannot appropriate something multiple times

Turner no2

an owner may be convicted of theft of their own property

Ivey test

current test for dishonesty

• was the state of Ds mind dishonest based on their knowledge at the time?

• Were D’s actions dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?

Barton anf booth

Affirmed Ivey test

Lloyd

Borrowing is not sufficient for theft

• returned film reel not stolen

Velunyl

• money taken is not borrowed unless EXACT notes are returned

Lavender

Intention necessary for theft

Coffey

gain from theft is not important

• stole machine intending to give it back if C paid

DPP v SJ

if property has lost its practical use upon return this counts as stolen

• D snapped Cs headphones before returning them

Corcoran v Anderton

D does not need to succeed in taking the property away for robbery to apply

Hale

for robbery the force must be at the time of

dawson

robbery - must be a threat of force or actual force

Brown

Body half in shop counted as entry for burglary

Stones

Possesion of weapon for aggravated burglary

• does not matter if that was not the intended use for the weapon

D was being hunted at the time

Pogmore

Actus reus of blackmail satisfied when the threat is sent

Gilbert

A representation is false if it is misleading

Idrees

fraud of false representation

• D1 took driving test for D2

Harris

booking hotel room implied he would pay

false representation to not pay

Ray

entering and ordering at restaurant implies you will pay

Charles

Issuing cheques despite no money in the bank

• Fraud by false representation

Ray

Fraud by abuse of position

• manager of care home spent money on Cs card

Smith (Andrew)

Failure to disclose

• failed to tell customer about right to cancel contract

Roe v Kingerlee

Graffiti on the wall amounted to criminal damage

• matter of fact and degree

Gayford v Chouler

criminal damage does not need to be permanent

• trampled grass

A (a juvenile) v R

Criminal Damage must be more than trivial

• Spit on policeman’s coat

Cakmak

Threats to damage property are considered objectively

Jaggard

Defence of honest belief for criminal damage

• Believed he had right to break window to gain entry

• had the wrong house

Hunt

Was found to not be honest belief to protect property

• D set fire to test fire alarms

Colston statue case

Belif that toppling statue was lawful as a political protest

• belief that the people of britsol consented

defence succesful

Ayliffe

protest at military base camp was aggravated damage

• tried to argue lawful excuse of political protest

• courts said it was not to their discretion to determine the legality of the Iraq war

Jogee

Foresight is not sufficiently equal to intent

continued participation in crime 1 is not authorisation of crime 2

Jury now decides questions of Intent

Whitefeild

It is a defence to have withdrawn from plan before the commission of the offence

Rook

No defence if withdrawl is after commission has begun

failure to turn up is not withdrawal

Tyrell

V cannot be complicit in crime against themself

Spragget

Accessories to crimes of violence must have intent of violence

Bratty v AG for NI

Defence of automatism

• D must show complete loss of voluntary control caused by an external factor

M’naughten

Every man is assumed sane - burden of proof of insanity lies on D

• D must prove suffering defect of reason caused by disease of the mind

• D did not know the quality or nature of the act

  • or they did not know it was wrong

Windle

Negated defence of insanity as when arrested said ‘i suppose ill be hung for this’

Oye

Defence of insanity due to schizophrenia

• also tried mistaken belief

believed police were evil spirit

Sullivan

Defence of insanity due to epilepsy

Hennessy

Defence of insanity due to Hyperglycemia

Majewski

Voluntary intoxication is not a defence

• alchohol

Lipman

voluntary intoxication is not a defence

• drugs

Sheehan and Moore

Intoxicated intent is still intent

Hatton

Mistake due to intoxication is no defence

Clegg

Degree of force in self defence must be reasonable

• British army officer shot car at Irish checkpoint

Quick

automatism caused by an external factor - hyperglycemia

Rashford

Force in self defence must not be revengeful

Oritz

duress

• D must show there was threats of death or GBH to themselves OR SOMEONE CLOSE TO THEM

Conjoined twins; surgical separation

Necessity defence

• lesser of two evils

Smith

Mistakes as to the law is not a defence