Studied by 2 people
This House of Lords case concerned a group of men who engaged in consensual sadomasochistic activities that led to injuries. The House held that consent was not a defense to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) or wounding under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The decision reinforced that the law could criminalize behavior deemed contrary to public morality, even if consensual and conducted in private.
This case involved a man who branded his wife with a hot knife as part of a consensual act. The Court of Appeal found that, unlike Brown, such consensual acts were not criminalized in the same way, given that there was no significant harm. The decision emphasized the need to distinguish between harmful and non-harmful activities in the context of consent.
BM involved a man who performed body modification procedures (e.g., cutting and branding) on himself and others. The Court of Appeal held that consent was not a valid defense against charges of causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) in this context. The case clarified the limits of consent in relation to bodily harm.
This case dealt with a man who inflicted injuries on a woman during a consensual act of "playful" violence. The court upheld that consent was a valid defense only where the harm was relatively minor and not exceeding the level of what was acceptable in everyday life. The case set the threshold for when consent could be considered a defense to assault charges.
White concerned a man who poisoned his mother with the intention to kill her. However, she died from a heart attack unrelated to the poison. The court held that the defendant's act was not the cause of death, thus ruling out his liability for murder. This case is significant for establishing the "but for" test for causation in criminal law.
In this case, the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield during a police shootout. She was killed by police gunfire. The court held that Pagett's actions were a substantial cause of her death, establishing that causation in criminal law can be established through foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s actions.
involved a soldier who was stabbed and later died due to inadequate medical treatment. The House of Lords held that the defendant’s actions were still the operative cause of death, even though the medical treatment contributed to the victim’s demise. This case is crucial for understanding how concurrent causes are assessed in causation.
involved a victim who died from a gunshot wound, complicated by negligent medical treatment. The Court of Appeal decided that the defendant’s actions remained the substantial cause of death, reinforcing that the original act remains a substantial cause even if subsequent events contribute.
Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37
involved a gatekeeper who failed to close a railway gate, resulting in a fatal accident. The court held that his omission constituted a breach of duty, and he was found criminally liable for manslaughter. The case established the principle that a duty of care can arise from contractual or official duties.
Stone and Dobinson [1977] 2 All ER 341
two were convicted of manslaughter after failing to care for Stone’s sister, who was living with them and died due to neglect. The court ruled that their omission constituted gross negligence, and they were criminally liable. The case clarified that a duty of care can arise from a voluntary assumption of responsibility.
Gibbons and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
In this case, a father and his partner were found guilty of manslaughter after failing to feed the father’s child, resulting in the child’s death. The case established that an omission can constitute criminal liability where there is a duty of care and a failure to fulfill that duty.
Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978
concerned a man who accidentally set fire to a mattress and then failed to take action to extinguish it. The House of Lords held that his failure to act constituted a criminal omission because he created a dangerous situation and had a duty to rectify it. The case is important for understanding when an omission can result in liability for an offence.
Mens Rea
Moloney [1985] AC 905
This case involved a man who shot his stepfather, not intending to kill but intending to scare him. The House of Lords established the "direct intention" test for mens rea, focusing on whether the defendant intended the consequence of their actions.
Mens Rea
Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82
involved a man who threw his baby at a wall, resulting in the baby’s death. The House of Lords held that "oblique intention" (where the defendant foresees the consequence as virtually certain) can be inferred from the defendant’s actions, refining the understanding of mens rea in criminal law.
Mens Rea
Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
established the test for recklessness, where the defendant is aware of the risk of their actions but proceeds regardless. The case provided the subjective test for recklessness, which requires that the defendant actually foresees the risk.
Mens Rea
Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55
This case concerned a woman who set fire to a house intending to frighten her lover. The fire unintentionally resulted in deaths. The House of Lords held that recklessness involves an awareness of the risk of harm and proceeding with the act anyway, refining the understanding of mens rea.
The case addressed whether a foetus could be considered a "person" for the purposes of murder. The House of Lords concluded that the unborn child was not considered a "person" under English law at the time, affecting the scope of murder charges.
Inglis [2011] 1 WLR 1110
involved a mother who killed her severely ill son by administering a lethal dose of heroin. The Court of Appeal ruled that mercy killing could not be a defense to a charge of murder, emphasizing that the law does not recognize a defense based on the motive of mercy.
Purdy [2009] UKHL 45
concerned the law on assisted suicide. The House of Lords ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must issue guidelines on prosecuting assisted suicide, which helped clarify the legal position on assisting in suicide.
involved a man who killed his wife after a series of provocations. The Court of Appeal discussed the partial defense of loss of control (now "loss of control" under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), providing guidance on how provocation is assessed in murder cases.
Ahluwalia involved a woman who killed her abusive husband after prolonged abuse. The Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, recognizing that a loss of control due to longstanding abuse could constitute a partial defense to murder, leading to a conviction for manslaughter instead.
Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2
Clinton also dealt with the partial defense of loss of control, clarifying the criteria for this defense and how the provocation must be considered in light of the defendant's actions and circumstances.
Rejmanski [2017] EWCA Crim 2061
Rejmanski concerned a defendant who suffered from a mental illness and killed his partner. The case involved examining whether diminished responsibility could apply when the defendant’s mental state was influenced by a combination of mental illness and external factors.
Asmelash [2014] QB 103
involved a defendant who was intoxicated when committing the offense. The court considered the impact of intoxication on the partial defense of loss of control and how it affected the defendant’s ability to claim diminished responsibility.
Byrne [1960] 3 All ER 1
involved a defendant with a severe mental illness who committed murder. The court established that the mental illness could constitute diminished responsibility if it substantially impaired the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct.
Dietschmann [2003] UKHL 10
dealt with a defendant who was intoxicated at the time of the offense but had a pre-existing mental condition. The House of Lords held that diminished responsibility could be established even if intoxication was a factor, as long as the mental disorder was a substantial factor.
Tandy [1989] 1 WLR 1201
involved a woman who killed her child while intoxicated. The court considered whether her alcoholism constituted a mental abnormality that could reduce murder to manslaughter, establishing a link between mental illness and diminished responsibility.
Egan [1998] 2 Cr App R 201
concerned a defendant with a mental illness who committed a violent crime. The case emphasized that diminished responsibility requires proof of a mental condition that substantially impairs the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of their conduct.
involved a defendant who caused the death of a woman by attacking her and then throwing her into a river. The court held that manslaughter requires an unlawful act that is dangerous and causes death, with the danger being assessed objectively.
Lowe [1973] QB 702
concerned a parent who failed to seek medical attention for his child, resulting in death. The court clarified that an omission alone does not constitute manslaughter unless it is combined with an unlawful act that causes death.
Mitchell [1983] 1 WLR 1206
involved a man who pushed another person in a post office, leading to a chain reaction that caused a fatal injury. The court held that the unlawful act must be directed at the victim, but the dangerousness can be assessed from a general perspective.
involved a defendant who committed a robbery that led to a heart attack in the victim. The court determined that the test for dangerousness is based on what a reasonable person would consider dangerous, regardless of the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s vulnerability.
involved an anesthetist whose negligence led to a patient’s death. The House of Lords established the test for gross negligence manslaughter, focusing on whether the conduct was so grossly negligent that it amounted to a criminal act.
Singh [1999] 2 Cr App R 144
involved a landlord who failed to maintain proper safety measures, leading to a fire and deaths. The court applied the gross negligence test, emphasizing the need for a serious breach of duty that caused the deaths.
Misra [2004] EWCA Crim 2375
involved doctors who failed to diagnose a patient’s infection, leading to death. The Court of Appeal confirmed that gross negligence requires a breach of duty that is so severe it amounts to a criminal offense, focusing on the seriousness of the breach.
Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1162
dealt with a healthcare professional whose negligence resulted in a patient’s death. The court reviewed the principles of gross negligence manslaughter, emphasizing the need for a substantial and serious breach of duty.
Non-Fatal Offences
Ireland; Burstow [1998] AC 147
Non-Fatal Offences
Savage; Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 699
This case clarified the mens rea required for actual bodily harm (ABH) under Section 47, affirming that it is sufficient for the defendant to intend or be reckless as to the assault or battery, but not necessarily the harm.
Non-Fatal Offences
R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534
involved a defendant who made threatening phone calls causing psychological harm. The House of Lords held that causing psychological injury can constitute a serious assault under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Non-Fatal Offences
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
involved a defendant who cut off a victim’s hair without consent. The House of Lords considered whether the act constituted actual bodily harm, concluding that any injury that interferes with the health or comfort of the victim can be considered ABH.
R v Lawrence [1972] AC 626
involved a taxi driver who took more money than was due. The House of Lords held that appropriation occurs when the defendant assumes the rights of the owner, even if the owner consented to the taking, clarifying the scope of theft.
concerned the test for dishonesty in theft, establishing a two-stage test: whether the defendant’s actions were dishonest by the standards of ordinary people and whether the defendant knew their actions were dishonest.
R v Hinks [2000] 4 All ER 833
Hinks involved a defendant who received substantial gifts from a vulnerable adult. The House of Lords held that even if the gifts were made voluntarily, the defendant’s actions could still constitute theft if the gifts were received dishonestly.
R v Brooks [2013] EWCA Crim 1304
Brooks dealt with whether theft requires an intention to permanently deprive the owner of property. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that an intention to permanently deprive is necessary, but the actual conduct need not involve an irreversible act.
Robbery
Robinson [1977] Crim LR 173
involved a defendant who committed a robbery with the intention of taking money from a victim. The Court of Appeal held that the crime of robbery requires that force or threat of force be used with the intention of permanently depriving the victim of their property.
Robbery
R v Dawson and James [1976] 1 WLR 1517
two guys involved a robbery where the defendants used force to take money. The court held that the force used does not need to be substantial, as long as it is sufficient to overcome resistance and is used to facilitate the theft.
Robbery
R v Bentham [2005] 1 WLR 1056
concerned whether pointing a replica gun during a robbery constituted the use of force. The Court of Appeal held that the force requirement in robbery is satisfied even if the weapon is not real, as long as the victim is induced to surrender their property.
Robbery
R v Collins [1972] 2 All ER 1105
involved a man who entered a property with the intention to steal. The House of Lords held that burglary requires entry into a building as a trespasser, with the intent to commit an offense. This case is significant for defining the elements of burglary.
Burglary
Collins [1972] 2 All ER 1105
involved a man who entered a building to commit a theft. The House of Lords established that for a burglary conviction, the entry must be as a trespasser, and the defendant must have the intent to commit an offense.
Burglary
R v Brown [1985] 2 All ER 985
involved a defendant who entered a building intending to steal and caused damage. The House of Lords held that burglary can be committed even if no theft is successful, as long as there was an intention to commit theft or another crime.
Burglary
R v Leatham [1861] 7 Cox CC 498
concerned a case of burglary where the defendant entered a shop with intent to commit theft. The court confirmed that the entry must be unlawful, and the defendant’s intention to commit an offense can be inferred from their actions.
Burglary
R v Jones and Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672
two dudes involved defendants who entered a house with the intention to steal. The court held that burglary requires an intent to commit an offense upon entry, and trespassers are liable even if they do not complete the intended theft.
Fraud
DPP v Ray [1974] AC 370
involved a man who misrepresented his intention to pay for a meal. The House of Lords held that misrepresentation, even if made with an honest belief, can still amount to fraud if it leads to obtaining property by deception.
Fraud
R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053
Ghosh set out the test for dishonesty in fraud cases, requiring both an objective and subjective assessment of whether the defendant’s actions were dishonest by the standards of ordinary people and whether the defendant was aware of this.
Fraud
R v Goldstein [1983] 2 All ER 209
Goldstein involved a defendant who obtained goods by deception, claiming he had the ability to pay when he did not. The court clarified the elements of fraud, focusing on the intention to deceive and the obtaining of property.
Fraud
R v McDavitt [2014] EWCA Crim 2651
McDavitt dealt with the application of fraud where the defendant used false information to obtain a benefit. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, reinforcing that the fraudulent intent and obtaining of a benefit are central to the offense.
R v Morris [1984] 1 WLR 271
Morris involved a defendant who switched price tags on items in a shop. The House of Lords held that appropriation for theft is completed when the defendant assumes any of the owner’s rights, including changing price tags.
Criminal Damage
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
Cunningham established the test for recklessness in criminal damage cases, requiring that the defendant is aware of the risk of harm and proceeds regardless. The case clarified the mens rea for criminal damage.
Criminal Damage
R v Smith [1974] QB 354
Smith involved a defendant who caused damage to a property while trying to prevent a fire. The court held that criminal damage requires an intention or recklessness regarding the damage, even if the defendant's motives were to prevent harm.
Criminal Damage
R v A [2016] EWCA Crim 158
A concerned a defendant who caused damage to property during a protest. The Court of Appeal ruled on the issue of recklessness and whether the damage was justified by the circumstances or constituted criminal damage.
R v H [2005] 1 WLR 2254
H involved a defendant accused of sexual activity with a minor. The House of Lords discussed the issue of consent and the relevance of the minor’s age in determining the legality of the sexual activity.
R v Dica [2004] 1 WLR 1324
Dica concerned a defendant who transmitted HIV to his partners without informing them. The court held that knowingly transmitting a serious disease without consent constitutes a sexual offense under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
R v R [1991] 1 AC 699
R dealt with the issue of marital rape and whether consent in marriage could be withdrawn. The House of Lords held that consent is not a permanent state and can be revoked, making marital rape a crime.
R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804
Bree involved a defendant who had sexual intercourse with a woman who was severely intoxicated. The Court of Appeal clarified the concept of consent and how intoxication affects the ability to give valid consent.
Note
Flashcard