Law case studies

Mitchell (1983)

Actus reus must be voluntary

D punched man in post office

Larsonneur (1933)

Some state of affairs don’t need voluntary actus reus

Found entering uk following deportation

Pittwood (1902)

A contractual duty exists

Worker failed to shut railway gates v killed by train

Gibbons and proctor (1918)

A relationship exists

Father failed to feed child

Stone and dobinson (1977)

A duty voluntarily undertaken

Stones elderly sister became ill D did not help

Evans (2009)

Omissions are actus Reus where d caused dangerous situation

Heroin addict lived with mum and sister who gave v drugs v overdosed d didn’t seek help

Dytham (1979)

A duty from an official position

D witnessed attack on v but didn’t seek help (was a cop)

Miller (1983)

Defendant created a dangerous situation

D fell asleep in empty house his cigarette started a fire he knew but didn’t get help

pagett (1983)

d is liable for third party’s acts if actions were reasonably foreseeable

D held v hostage and used her as human shield

Hughes (2013)

Consequence wouldn’t have happened without defendants conduct

D had faultless driving v was reckless smashed into d and had fatal injuries but d had no insurance

Kimsey (1996)

Ds acts must be more than a slight or trifling cause of the result

D in car chase and lost control killing other driver, evidence of what happened before the crash was unclear

Blaue (1975)

Victim has unusual physical health resulting in more serious injury

D stabbed v and needed blood but v was a Jehovah’s Witness and died

Smith (1959)

If d acts is still a substantial cause d us liable even if medical treatment is bad

D stabbed v in lung soldiers carried v to medical centre but dropped him and v died

Cheshire (1991)

Intervening medical treatment can only break chain if it’s independent of wounds

D shot v who was given tracheotomy v died from complications even though original injury healed d liable

Jordan (1956)

If v dies of bad treatment that caused the death the d isn’t liable

D stabbed v and was given antibiotics but had allergic reaction

Malcherek (1981)

Switching off life support doesn’t break the chain of causation

D stabbed v and was put in life support machines was turned off d liable

Roberts (1972)

Defendant caused victim to react in a foreseeable way

v jumped from car to avoid ds sexual advances v was injured

Marjoram (2000)

Defendant causes v to react in a foreseeable way

D shouted abuse at vs hotel forced door open v jumped from window with serious injury

Kennedy (2007)

Defendant causes victim to react in a foreseeable way

D supplied v with drugs v self administered so d didn’t cause the death

Mohan (1975)

Defined direct intention a desire to bring about a particular consequence

D responded to cops request to slow down and accelerated in direction of cop who had to dive out the way

Hancock and shankland (1986)

Consequence more likely means foreseeability

D wanted to stop a miner working and pushed concrete block onto road killing driver

Moloney (1985)

Foresight of consequences is evidence of intention not intent itself

D and father were drunk and race to assemble loaded gun but father was shot

Woolin (1998)

Jury cannot find intention unless sure death was a virtual certainty and d knew this

D threw 3 month old baby toward pram in frustration killing child

Matthews and alleyne

Foresight of consequences does not equal intention. Jury can find intention but doesn’t have to

D dropped v from bridge v said he couldn’t swim d left before v reached bank v drowned

Cundy v le coq (1884)

eg if strict liability offence (alcohol)

D charged with selling alcohol to intoxicated person, customer didn’t appear intoxicated

Fagan v MPC(1986)

Continuing acts

D drove on cops foot accidentally

Adomako(1994)

Example of negligence in a criminal case

D was an anaesthetist who failed to notice O2 pipe disconnected

Cunningham (1957)

Established definition of subjective recklessness

R removed gas meter to steal money, gas leaked and affected resident

Gnango (2011)

Example of transferred malice

D and man shooting in street, man killed innocent passerby d convicted of murder in attempted to kill man

Thabo meli V R

Coincidence of actus reus and men’s rea

D attacked man and thought him dead, pushed him over a cliff and he died of exposure

Nelson (2013)

Defines assault

D serving sentence, threatened to smash guards face in

Constanza (1997)

Words can be the actus reus of assault

D sent over 800 threatening messages to v

Ireland (1997)

Silence can be the actus reus of assault

D made series if silent phone calls to 3 women for months

Smith v Woking (1983)

For assault, immediate means imminent not instantaneous

D broke into garden, stared at v through window at night

Collins v wilcock (1984)

Force can be slight for the actus reus of battery

D(cop) holds vs arm to prevent them walking away, woman scratched him but d wasn’t arresting so holding arm= battery

Wood(fraser) v DPP(2008)

Force can be slight for the actus reus of battery

D was mistaken for another man, officer took hold of ds arm resulting in battery

Thomas (1985)

Touching a persons clothing is the same as touching them

D touched vs skirt but not v directly

DPP v K

Indirect acts can form the actus reus of battery

D hides acid in hand dryer in school, to collect later, v uses hand dryer and is sprayed with acid

Miller (1954)

Defines ABH- any injury calculated to interfere with the health of v

D threw v to ground several times

T v DPP (2003)

Temporary loss of consciousness can be ABH

d chased and kicked v, who lost consciousness

R v chan fook (1994)

ABH need not be permanent, psychiatric injury can amount to ABH

V tried to escape v and was hurt in the process

DPP V smith(Michael) (2006)

Cutting hair can be ABH

D cut if vs ponytail

JJC v Eisenhower (1983)

Internal bleeding doesn’t constitute a wound

V shot in eye, caused burst blood vessel

burstow (1997)

Serious psychiatric injury can constitute GBH

D harassed v, who later suffered severe depression

Bollom (2004)

Severity of injuries assessed based on vs age and health

Baby suffered bruising as a result of ds action

Dica (2004)

Transmitting HIV is GBH

D didn’t inform v he was HIV positive, passed it to v

Morrison (1989)

S.18 resisting arrest =intent, subsequent injury can be recklessness

Cop hold d while arresting him, d dived through window injuring cop

Taylor (2009)

Intent to wound not enough for s.18

V found with scratches and a stab wound in his back

Savage(1991)

Men’s rea for ABH is the same as men’s rea for common assault- intent or subjective recklessness

D threw drink over v glass slipped and cut vs wrist

Re A (conjoined twins) (2000)

Example of lawful killing

M depended on J. j had a chance of survival, M didn’t. Doctors separated them killing M

Lord coke

Defined murder: the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being in being under the kings peace with malice afterthought.

Attorney generals reference (no.3 of 1994) (1997)

Foetus is not a reasonable person in being

D stabs v when pregnant, baby born prematurely as a result and the baby dies

Vickers (1957)

Intent to cause GBH is enough for men’s Rea of murder

D breaks into vs shop, beats him up

Lloyd (1967)

For diminished responsibility ‘substantial impairment’ does not mean total, nor trivial or minimal- something in between

D strangled wife, medical evidence suggests he suffered from depression which impaired his social responsibility by that of abnormality to some extent

Golds (2016)

For diminished responsibility ‘substantial impairment’ must be more than trivial but not every case that is more then trivial will meet standard of substantial

D killed partner and admitted it. Medical evidence showed am abnormality of mental functioning but the question was whether or not he was in a psychotic state at the time of the killing

Byrne (1960)

Provides definition for abnormality of the mind

D was sexual psychopath, strangled v and mutilated her body, because of conditions, he couldn’t control desires

Dietschmann (2003)

Intoxication and abnormality of mental functioning may constitute diminished responsibility (adjustment disorder)

D upset that v was disrespecting ds deceased aunt and killed v by kicking and stamping

Wood(2008)

Alcohol dependency syndrome(ADS) can constitute an abnormality of mental functioning

After drinking, d fell asleep at vs flat. D woke to find v attempting SA. D repeatedly hit v with meat cleaver and caused death. Medical evidence showed d suffered from ADS

Stewart (2009)

Set out 3 stage test for ADS as a cause of abnormality

D was a chronic alcoholic suffering ADS and sleeping rough. Killed a man in course of a fight

Dowds (2012)

Voluntary intoxication alone cannot constitute diminished responsibility

D and v were heavy binge drinkers. D stabbed v 60 times whilst drunk

Jewell (2014)

Loss of control: the defendant must have ‘lost it’ or ‘snapped’, acting out of character is not enough

D shoots v point blank, evidence of escape plan so was not loss of control

ward (2012)

Loss of control: fear of serious violence can be toward another, not necessarily d

V head-butted ds brother. D came to his brothers aid, hitting v with a pickaxe handle causing death

Dawes (2013)

Loss of control: fear of serious violence is not viable where d instigated offence

D returned home to find v and wife with legs entwined. There was an altercation where d stabbed v and killed him

Zebedee (2012)

Qualifying trigger must: a) constitute circumstances of extremely grave character and b) d must have a justifiable sense of being wronged

D ‘lost control’ when 94 year old father constantly soiled himself

Hatter (2013)

Breakdown of relationship not usually a qualifying trigger for loss of control

Ds relationship with v broke down. D entered vs home after midnight via a window and accidentally stabbed v

Bowyer (2013)

A sense of being seriously wronged cannot exist where d initiates offence

D and v having relationships with prostitute. D went to vs house to burgle v, informed d woman was a prostitute and taunts d. D tied up v, v was alive when d left, v found dead next day

Clinton (2012)

Sexual infidelity alone is not a trigger but can be considered where it forms an essential part of context where other triggers also exist

D suffered from depression and took medication. Wife told him she had an affair, taunted him about his suicidal thoughts. They argued. D killed v

Asmelash (2013)

Voluntary intoxication cannot form part of ds circumstances when considering a defence of loss of control

D and v had been drinking. Alight broke out and d stabbed v, d argued the defence of loss of control

Lamb (1967)

A complete criminal act must take place for unlawful act manslaughter to be proven

2 boys playing with revolver, one of the boys pointed gun at the other believing it would not go off however the revolver fired and killed the boy

Lowe (1973)

Omissions can’t constitute an act under unlawful act manslaughter

V died of neglect from father

Larkin (1943)

The unlawful act must be dangerous according to an objective test

D threatened another man with an open cut throat razor. V was drunk and attempted to intervene and accidentally fell onto the razor cutting his throat.

Newbury and Jones (1976)

D must have men’s Rea for unlawful act but doesn’t need too realise act is unlawful or dangerous

Ds pushed a paving stone from a bridge onto a railway line hitting a train and killing the guard

Broughton (2020)

Restated the necessary tests involved in gross negligence manslaughter

D supplied drugs his girlfriend who suffered a bad reaction.d stayed with v to the point with v where her life was obviously in danger but didn’t seek help

Singh (1999)

A duty of care can be contractual

D was the landlord of a property with a faulty gas fire which caused the death of tenants

Wacker (2002)

A duty of care can be taken on voluntarily

D agreed to smuggle 60 illegal immigrants into England in the back of a lorry, closed the lorry’s small vent and the immigrants couldn’t breathe, found 58 of them dead

Bateman (1925)

Negligence alone is not enough, the negligence must be gross

D was a doctor who attended a woman’s birth at her home. During the birth part of the woman’s uterus came away. D didn’t send the woman to hospital for 5 days and she later died.

Misra and another (2004)

Ds were senior house doctors charged with the aftercare of v following an operation. Both failed to identify and treat the infection and v died of toxic shock .

A-G for NI v Gallagher (1963)

Drunken intent is still intent

D decided to kill wife. He bought a knife and drunk whiskey for Dutch courage before killing his wife

DPP v beard (1920)

Voluntary intoxication may negate men’s Rea for specific intent offences

D assaulted 13 yr old girl whilst drunk, he placed hand over her mouth to prevent screaming, v died of suffocation

Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)

Mistaken act against property due to intoxication but with honest belief that act is consensual is a defence

D who was drunk went to what she thought was a friends house, she broke in through the window and believed her friend would’ve consented to this

Hatton (2005)

Excessive force used in self defence as a result of intoxication is not a defence

D was drunk and went to vs flat. In the morning v was found dead which injuries caused by a sledgehammer. D thought v had attacked him with a long stick and d had defended himself

Kingston (1994)

Involuntary intoxication with intent is still an offence despite involuntary nature of intoxication

D was drugged by blackmailer, he was invited to abuse a 15 yr old boy. D did and was photographed by blackmailer

Lipman (1970)

A mistake due to intoxication which affects men’s Rea will provide a defence for specific intent offences but not for basic intent offences

D and v took LSD and drug known for hallucinations. D believe he was being attacked by snakes, v was found dead having been strangled and a bedsheet stuffed in her mouth

Majewski (1977)

Voluntarily consuming intoxicating substances is reckless and so men’s Rea of basic intent offences is satisfied

D took drunks and went to the pub. He fought with people including landlord, them assaulted 2 officers and a police inspector

O’grady (1987)

Excessive force used in self defence as a result of intoxication is not a defence

D and v drinking heavily. D claimed he woke to find v hitting him so d picked up an ashtray and hit v. V died

Sheehan & Moore (1975)

Voluntary intoxication may negate men’s Rea for specific intent offences

Ds were drunk and set a homeless man on fire, the man died

Donovan (1934)

Consent can be a defence to battery

D had caned vin sexual relations causing bruising

Slingsby (1995)

Consent as a defence to unlawful act manslaughter

D and v having sex, v suffered cut from signet ring, v died of blood poisoning

Tabassum (2000)

Consent given by v must be true consent

D persuaded women to allow him to measure breasts to create a database, they believe d had qualifications, d didn’t

Olugboja (1982)

Mere submission is different to consent

V raped by ds friend and seen friend raped by same man, when d tried to have sex with v, she submitted

Golding (2014)

Serious harm cannot be consented to

D recklessly infected v with herpes via sex

Barnes (2004)

Injury sustained in the course of sport by an action in the rules is consensual

D made a late tackle on v during football, v suffering leg injury as a result

Brown (1993)

People can’t consent to sadomasochistic injury

Ds engaged in sadomasochistic such as palling stinging nettle and inserting pins. Injuries were trivial, all victims consented

Jones (1986)

Genuine but mistaken consent can lead to a defence

2 schoolboys tossed in air by older kids. One suffered broken arm, other ruptured spleen

Wilson (1997)

People can consent to injury in the course of body adornments (branding)

At vs request, d branded his initials on her with a hot knife, v had to seek medical attention

Wilson v Pringle (1987)

Ordinary jostlings of everyday life are no battery- implied consent

D seized vs bag causing him to fall and injure himself

Billinghurst (1978)

Injury sustained in the course of sport by an action not in the rules is not consensual

D punched v during rugby match unprovoked

A-G reference [No.6 1980] (1981)

S.47 injuries can’t be consented to aside from certain exceptions

2 men agreed to fight, both had injuries consistent with s.47

BM (2018)

Cannot consent to ABH or GBH/ wounding

D carried out body modification, removing ear, nipple and splitting tongue. D didn’t have medical training although clients consented

Aitken (1992)

Genuine but mistaken consent can lead to a defence

Ds had been setting fire to others wearing flame proof suits, 3rd victim suffered serious burns