Criminal Law Case List

December 2025 Exam

Fagan

Coincidence between AR & MR , disgtingushes completed vs continuing acts

Thabo Meli

transactional approach, no temporal concidence between AR & MR

Church

transactional coincidence approach taken

Le Brun

causational approach, balances single transaction with causation

Bland v Airdale NHS

distinguishes act vs omission, ceasing medical treatment = omission

Gibbins v Proctor

duty imposed from special relationship (parent/child), causation of death can occur through act or omission

Hood

familial duty to act, failure to seek medical help = manslaughter

Stone & Dobinson

duty to act based on voluntary assumption of care

Sinclair

voluntary assumption of care during overdose

Pitwood

contractual duty to act (railway gatekeeper)

Miller

omission by endangerment. failure to remedy dangerous situation created by D

Evans

duty of care based on contribution to dangerous situation, D not need be aware of danger created to nuliy duty to act

White

not factual cause of death = no liability

Dyson

acceletrating time of death is a cause

Re A Conjoined Twins

surgery would accelarate time of death, legal cause, not liable through necessity

Dalloway

legal cause must be substantial (de minimis test), blameworthy and operative

Hughes

must be blameworthy for purposes of legal causation

Michael

third party interventions only break the chain of causion if free, deliberate and informed

Pagett

free, deliberate & informed test affrimed, police acts not fully voluntary

Empress Car

foreseeability matters, foreseeable intervention may not break the chain

R v A

Third-party interventions only break chain if foreseeable by D and reasonable person

Jordan

medical treatments only break chain if palpably wrong

Smith

medical negligence did not break chain, D still operative cause (failure to diagnose extent of wounds)

Cheshire

medical negligence must be so independent/potent to break the chain in causation.

Kennedy

Free, deliberate, and informed V inverention will break the chain

Roberts

V’s foreseeable reaction to threat from D will not break chain

Rebelo

foreseeable misuse of weight loss pills = chain not broken

Field

if V not informed of intent to kill, voluntariness irrelevant

Dear

victim reopening wounds (suicide) did not break the chain; D is still significantt & operative cause of death

Wallace

D threw acid at V, V sought euthanasia, Doctor or V’s acts dd not break the chain

Hayward

V had an underlying condition unknown to both partities, did not break chain Eggshell skull: take V as you find them

Blaue

Eggshell skull extended to beliefs (Jehovahs Witness refusal of blood)

Latimer

transferred malice, transfer MR from, one harm to another withtin same offence category

AG Ref No.3

No double transfer of malice (stabbed pregnantt GF, baby born prematurely and died)

Woollin

Obique intention: 1. virtual certainty of death or serious harm 2. D recognizes virtual certainty

Steane (intention)

The jury is not compelled to find intention even if both limbs satisfied.

Cunningham

subjective recklessness: 1. must have foresight of risk 2. decide to take risk anyways

Briggs

recklessness present when performing deliberate act knowing risk of damage and still taking risk

Parker

closing mind to obvious risk = recklessness

Stephenson

Subjective test, appreciation of risk must have entered D’s mind

Elliot

objective recklessness, D gave no thought to obvious risk that reasonable person would have

R v G

must have foresight and unreasonable continuation

Murder

D must be a person, have died, D caused V’s death, and have intended to kill or cause GBH

Bland

brain stem death required for AR to be satisfied

R v Cunningham

Intent to cause GBH enough for murder

Voluntary Manslaughter

Loss of control test; qualifying trigger, reasonable person test, excludes sexual indidelity

Thornton

past law, provocation failed due to lack of suddeness

Ahluwalia

slow burn response, provocation inadequate (prejuidical againt women?)

Doughty

baby crying was deemed provocation

Jewell

loss of self-control = loss of ability to act in accordance wth considered judgment or loss of powers of reasoning (excludes revenge)

Clinton

Sexual infidelity can be a contextual factor but not sole trigger

Rejmanski

mental disorders not part of circumstances for reasonable person under LOC

Dowds

Voluntary intoxication alone does not grant a diminished responsibility defense.

Foy

consumption of intoxicants as the result of an addiction may qualify for DR

Newsbury & Jones

unlawful act manslaughter: D must intentionally perform unlawful, objectively dangerous act that caused death

AG Ref No.3

UAM must be intentional

Grey

base unlawful act required

Dawson

no eggshell rule for UAM dangerousness

Watson

D’s knowledge during act relevant to dangerousness (if D was aware V was vulnerable)

Adomako

GNM : D owed duty of care, breach of duty, breach posed serious/obvious risk of death, breach caused or made more than de minimus contribution to death

Wacker

duty of care differ between criminal and civil law (transporting illegal immigrants)

Rose GNM

risk must be reasonably foreseeable at the time of breach (eye exam giving rise to death)

Kuddos

no requirement to prove serious and obvious risk of death for a specific victim (nut allergy)

Broughton

breach must be more than de minmus for purposes of GNM

Misra

challenged vagueness of ‘gross negligence’

Ireland

AR requirements of assault: V must apprehend infliction of immediate, unlawful force; link between D’s act and V’s apprehension

Ireland & Burstow

Words/silence can amount to assault dependant on V’s response

Venna

MR for assault & battery = intention or recklessness

DPP v K

Battery can be indirect or direct (acid in hand dryer)

Battery

AR: infliction of unlawful force

Thomas

Any degree of touching is sufficient for battery, including touching through clothes

Haystead

indirect application of force can be battery (punched woman holding baby)

Santa-Bermudez

battery can be caused through omission, D omitted to reveal sharp object in pocket

Chan Fook

ABH means injury not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant.

T v DPP

ABH: More than transient or trifling, could include lack of consciousness

Smith

cutting hair amounts to ABH

Irleand & Burstow

ABH includes recognzed psychiatrc illnesses, only recognizable ones (stress not included)

Bollom

every layer of skin must be broken = wounding

Birmingham

seriousness of harm is to be judged objectively in context of harm

Wilson

no need to establish base offence of battery/assault for s.20 infliction

Savage & Parmenter (MR)

To be guilty of s.47, D only needs the mens rea for the base offense (assault or battery)—not for the harm itself.

Taylor

s.18 requires intention to cause GBH, wound not enough

Brown

sadomasochistc harm is not a legally acceptable category for consent

Barnes

sports injuries fall into consent categories unless they are beyond what player can reasonably regard as accepted by taking part in the sport

Jones

Horseplay is a legally recognzized activity

Aitken

horseplay can apply to adults

AG Ref No.6

Consensual fistfights not lawful, policy againt allowing street voilence

BM

consent is not a defence for serious non medical body modications

Wilson (consent)

branding between spouses treated as tattoos, consent valid

Emmett

Sadomasochistic acts between man & woman, distinguished Wilson, consent invalid

Dica

Consent to sex does not mean consent to serious STD’s, STDs consitute GBH

Konzani

V can only consent to risk of STDs if they have been informed

Richardson (Diana)

deception as to identity or nature/quality of act vitiates consent; lack of qualifications is not identity (dentist suspended)

Melin

deception as to professional status can be linked to identity & can vitiate consent.

Paterson

deception as to nature/quality/purpose vitiates consent (vasectomies)

R v C

consent undermined, D asserted dominance over V, undermining freedom and capacity to choose

R v B

failure to disclose HIV statuts does not inhiibit. choice for purposes of sexual offences act

Jheeta

Deception as to situation invalidates consent, which is valid under s.76 but invalid under s.74

Assange

conditons attached, breach of condition vitiates consent (removal of condom)

R (F)

condition to withdraw, failure to withdraw vitiated consent