A level law cases (Personal)

Fisher V Bell

- Displayed flick knife in shop window

- offence to offer sale

- NOT GUILTY : sign said 'invitation to treat' not ' for sale'

- literal rule

R v R

-D convicted of attempting to rape his wife

- claimed it was legally impossible for a husband to rape his wife as she had given consent through marriage

- CoA upheld the conviction , declared that marital rape exemption didn't exist under English law

R v Mitchell (1983)

- D tried to push his way into a queue

- 72 y/o man told him off & the D punched the man causing him to stagger backward into an 82 y/o woman

- the woman was knocked over and a few days later she died from her injuries caused by the fall

- D convicted of unlawful act manslaughter

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)

- Ds took stones' sister (v) in who was anorexic

- V refused to leave her room & seek medical attentiom

-Ds made some effort took take care of her & then left her to it

- Eventually V died from starvation

- Ds guilty of manslaughter

- duty was undertaken voluntarily.

R v Evans (2009)

- V ( 16 & heroin addict) lived with her mother & older half sister (HS)

- HS bought some heroin & have it to V who self injected

- later it became obvious V had overdosed

- both Ds didn't attempt to seek medical help, instead they put V to bed hoping she'd recover, she died.

- both convicted of gross negligence and manslaughter

duty; relationship

R v Miller (1983)

- D living in squat, he fell asleep while smoking a cigarette.

- woke up to find his mattress on fire, did not attempt to summon help or put it out but went into another room and went back to sleep

- convicted of arson

- guilty: didn't take reasonable steps to deal with the fire

-chain of events

DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003]

- policewoman asked D before checking his pockets if he had any needles or any other sharp objects

- D said no

- PW put her hand in his pocket & was injured by a needle which caused bleeding

- D convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm

R v Pittwood

- railway crossing keeper failed to shut the gates

- person then crossed the line & was struck & killed by a train

- keeper guilty of manslaughter

- failed to fulfil his contractual duty

R v Pagett (1983)

- D took pregnant gf from her home by force & held her hostage

- police called on him to surrender

- D came out, used gf as human shield while firing at police

- police returned fire, gf killed by police bullets

- D convicted of manslaughter: factual causation, 'but for'

R v Hughes

- D driving camper van when a car crashed into him (v)

- D driving was faultless

- van tipped over, killing v who was under the influence of heroin

- D charged with causing death by driving without a license & whilst uninsured

- HELD: supreme court squashed conviction, Ds driving didn't cause the death

R v Blaue (1975)

- young woman stabbed by D

- needed a blood transfusion to save her life

- she refused, she was a Jehovah's witness (does not allow blood transfusions)

- she died, D convicted of manslaughter

- refusal of the blood transfusion made the wound fatal but D still at fault

- thin skull rule - must take victim as you find them

White (1910)

- D put cyanide in his mothers drink, intending to kill her

- she died of a heart attack before she could drink it

- D not the factual causation of her death

-not guilty of murder but guilty of attempted murder.

R v Smith (1959)

- D stabbed another soldier in the lung

- V carried to medical centre, dropped on the way

- V then received treatment which worsened his injuries & he died

- HELD: despise the bad treatment which lowered his chance of recovery, D still guilty of murder

-stab wound was still operating & was the substantial cause of death.

R v Cheshire (1991)

- D shot V in thigh & stomach

- developed breathing problems

- needed tracheotomy

- V died from complications due to tracheotomy

- D still guilty : tracheotomy not sufficiently independent from gunshot wound

- didn't break chain

R v Malcherek (1981)

- D stabbed his wife

- she was put on life support

- after tests showed she was brain dead, machine was turned off

- D charged with murder

_ life support doesn't break chain of causation

R v Roberts (1972)

- girl jumped from a car in order to escape sexual advances made by Roberts

- car was travelling between 20 & 40 mph .

- girl was injured by jumping from it

- D liable for her injuries: reaction was foreseeable

R v Williams and Davis

- Hitchhiker jumped from Williams' car & died from head injuries

- car was travelling about 30 mph

- prosecution alleged that there had been an attempt to steal the V wallet which resulted in V jumping

- chain of causation broken, reaction not foreseeable nor proportionate to threat level, D not liable for death

R v Holland (1841)

- D deliberately cut V's finger

- cut became infected, v was advised to get it amputated

- V refused until it was too late & he died from infection

- D liable for his death

Cunningham (1957) - subjective recklessness

- D tore a gas meter from a wall of an empty to steal the money from it

- caused gas to seep into the house next door where a woman was affected by it

- not liable: didn't realise there was a risk

Woollin (1998)

- D threw his young baby at its pram to stop it screaming

- baby missed the pram and hit a wall

- baby suffered injuries and died

- consequence was visually certain as a result of the act

- D liable

Adomako

- appellant was an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an eye operation

- during operation, oxygen pipe became disconnected & patient died

- Appellant failed to notice/respond to obvious signs of disconnection

- guilty

Latimer

- D aimed a blow at a man whom he'd just had an argument with

- belt bounced off the man & hit a woman in the face

- liable for her injuries

- transferred malice

Fagan vs MPC

- D asked to pull over, when he parked he drove onto police officers foot

- at first D didn't realise but when he was told, he refused to move the car for several minutes.

R v Church

- D had a fight & knocked V unconscious

- thought she was dead

- dropped her into the river where the later drowned

- D guilty despite his original intent & the act being completely separate

- used for dangerous test ( sober & reasonable person would foresee some harm)

R v Constanza (1997)

- D had 800 letters & made a number of calls to the v

- V interpreted these letters as threats

- HELD: there was an assault & the V had feared violence

- letters can amount to an assault

R v Ireland

- D made silent phone calls to the V

- HELD: silence can amount to an 'act'

- the silence amounted to an assault as the b apprehended immediate/imminent violence

Smith V Chief Constable of Woking

-D entered a private garden at night & looked through the bedroom of the V

- she was terrified & thought he was about to enter the room

- D guilty: fear of what he might do was sufficiently immediate for the purposes of assault

Logdon v DPP

-D, as a joke, pointed a gun at a victim, who was terrified until she was told it was a replica

- V had apprehended immediate physical violence, and D had been at the very least, reckless as to whether this would occur

Tuberville v Savage

Man put his hand on his sword and said "if it were not assize-time I would not take such language from you"

- despite the act which made the V fear immediate violence (hand on sword) his words cancelled the assault. Showed violence would not be allowed

R v Light

- "were it not for the bloody policeman outside, I would split your head open"

- said with sword raised above Vs head

- determined to be an assault due to seriousness

DPP v k

- D , schoolboy , took some sulphuric acid from school lab into the toilet to mess with

- he heard footsteps & put the acid in the hot air dryer to hide it

- before he could remove it after class , another pupil used the dryer & was sprayed by the acid

-D charged with assault occasioning ABH

( common assault could be committed by an indirect act)

R v Thomas

- D touched the bottom of a woman's skirt & rubbed it

- touching someone's clothing while they're wearing it is equivalent to touching them

- therefore even touching the v's clothing can be sufficient to form a battery

Miller

- stated that actual bodily harm is ' any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim'

DPP v Smith

- D had an argument with his gf

- he cut off her ponytail and some hair from the top of her head without consent

- he was charged with an offence under s47 AOPA 1861

- HELD: cutting of a substantial amount of hair could be actual bodily harm

R v Savage

- D threw beer over another woman in the pub

- the glass slipped from the Ds hand & the Vs hand was cut by the glass

- D had not intended to injure her & she did not realise there was a risk of injury

- intended to throw beer over woman : intended to apply unlawful force - sufficient for MR of s47 offence

JCC v Eisenhower

- V hit in the eye with a shotgun pellet

- did not penetrate the eye but did cause severe bleeding under the surface - not a wound

- wound must be a cut or break in the continuity of the whole skin - surface & internal

R v Bollom

- 17 month old baby had bruising to her abdomen , both arms & legs

- D convicted of causing gbh

- bruising can amount to GBH

R v Dica

- D had unprotected sex with two women without telling them he was HIV positive

- infected both women as a result

- biological harm can be gbh

R v Burstow

- d carried out 8 month harassment campaign against his ex

- harassment consisted of silent & abusive telephone calls, hate mail & stalking

- caused v to suffer severe depression

- d conviction of s20 upheld

R v Parmenter

- D badly injured his three month old baby when he threw the baby in the air & caught him

- D said he had done this often with his slightly older children & didn't realise there was a risk of injury

- d convicted of assault occasioning abh

Re A

- doctors separated conjoined twins knowing one of them would not survive

- lawful killing

AG's reference ( no 3 of 1944)

- pregnant woman stabbed in abdomen

- child must exist independently from the mother to be a reasonable creature in being

R v Byrne (1960)

- abnormality of mental functioning: must be so different from ordinary human being that it would be deemed abnormal

- byrne unable to control his perverted desires

- can't exercise self control either

R v Dietschmann

- intoxication + pre existing abnormality of mental functioning

- if the abnormality was not enough on its own to substantially impair D then not applicable for DR

R v Wood (2008)

Alcholism can be considered as abnormality ( alcohol dependancy syndrome is a recognised medical condition)

- if drinking not voluntary the defence can be used

R v Doughty

- D killed baby who wouldn't stop crying

- baby crying can amount to provocative act ( can reduce murder sentence)

R v Clinton

- sexual infidelity can't be relied upon as a qualifying trigger but can be taken into account as a third component

R v Camplin

Reasonable test - would person of same age and sex lose their control in the same set of circumstances

Balfour v Balfour (1919)

- Husband worked overseas and agreed to send maintenance payments to wife

- at time of agreement couple were happily married, relationship later soured and husband stopped making payments, wife sought to enforce the agreement

- agreement purely social and domestic, not legally binding, husband won

Merritt v Merritt

- husband left wife for another woman

-husband and wife had a legal agreement where the husband would pay her £40 a month until mortgage paid off and then he would transfer his share of the house.

- he didn't and she brought about an action for a declaration that the house belonged to her

- distinguished from balfour v balfour as there was a legally binding agreement.

R v Wacker

_ D agreed to bring back 60 legal immigrants to england

-- D closed air vent & 58 of the immigrants died

- D clearly assumed care as he knew the safety of the immigrants depended on this own actions

- relevant that the Vs parties to illegal act

R v larkin

D threatened a man with a razor

- a woman fell on the razor and died

- unlawful act need not be aimed at the v but but be objectively dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause some harm.

R v Goodfellow

_ d set fire to his flat causing 2 deaths

- unlawful act can be aimed at property but it must be objectively dangerous in the sense that it is likely to cause some harm

R v Dawson

a petrol station attendant died of a heart attack when his petrol station was robbed

- sober and reasonable person have not recognised that the act of robbery would have caused the heart attack had they been unaware of the Vs heart condition.

R v Watson

- During a burglary the Ds physically abused the 87 year occupant - he later died of a heart attack

- reasonable person would've been aware of the V's frailty and risk of suffering some harm

DPP v Newbury and Jones

The D's pushed a a paving stone onto a passing train, killing the guard.

- D need only yo have mens rea to do the unlawful act, there is no need for D to foresee that it might cause harm.

Morris

- switching price labels and placing the items in basket amounts to appropriation

Lawrence

- D taxi driver, driving foreign student, fair was small but student spoke very little english and offered his wallet to the taxi driver so he could take what was required to pay the fair

- d took 20x more than he was supposed to - guilty of theft

- appropriation need not be without the consent of the owner

Oxford v Moss (1979)

-confidential information does not qualify as property

Marshall

- reselling travel cards amounts to theft as consumers only have the right to use them for travel

Kelly

- d took body parts from Royal college of London without permission or intention of returning them

- held: proper of the college as they had been acquired legally and had been modified.

Turner (1971)

- D left his car at the garage for repairs overnight , it was agreed that he'd pay when he collected his car after the repairs had been completed.

- car was left by the garage, on the road outside with the repairs almost done

- d used spare key to take car overnight without paying for repairs

- HELD- garage was in possession of car so D could be guilty of stealing his own car.

A-G

- policewoman was overpaid significantly, she left the money in her account and did not withdraw it but was aware she was overpaid.

- amounted to theft- failed to restore the property to the original owner.

Dawson and James

D pushed the V, lost balance, got his wallet - 'force' was up to the jury to decide

Robinson

- D was owed £7 from the V, during a fight the v dropped £5 and D took it.

-D not dishonest if he believes he has a legal right to the property

P v DPP

-force can't be applied to the object.

Bentham

- finger gun

- threat of force is sufficient.

- intent to cause fear is enough

Hale

- D entered house to steal and on the way out they tied up the V

- issue: was the theft complete before the force

- Held: the theft was a continuing act, therefore coincided with the theft - conviction upheld.

M'Naughten Rules 1843

D must be suffering from:

1. a defect of reason

2. which is a result of the disease of the mind

3. which caused the d to not know the nature and quality of the act.

R v Clarke

rules of insanity for defect of reason do not apply to mere absent mindedness or confusion

Burgess

- D attacked girlfriend in his sleep , due to sleep walking disorder.

-disease of the mind must be due to an internal cause

Kemp

can be a mental disease or physical disease which affects the mind & can be temporary

Hennessy

- diabetic did not take insulin for 3 days

- - can be a disease of any part of the body as long as it has an effect on the mind.

R v Quick

- D diabetic, took insulin but did not eat enough food , caused low blood sugar which affected his brain - D then assaulted someone

- if disease of the mind caused by external factors the defence of insanity does not apply

R v Windle

- if D understands the nature/quality of the act, he will not be able to use the defence of insanity

" i suppose they'll hang me for this"

Bratty v Atorney General

Defines automatism as "an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind"

AG's ref ( no 2 of 1922)

for the defence of automatism to be successful there must be a total lack of awareness, driving without awareness not sufficient as still some control

R v T

automatism can be due to stress

R v Hasan

sets out the tests for the defence of duress to succeed

cole

( duress) the threats must relate directly to the crime committed by the defendant

Hudson and taylor

duress may still be used under police protection ( police protection may not be foolproof)

R v Sharp

D can't use the defence of duress if they voluntarily laid themselves open to threats.

R v Willer

Duress of circumstances. Committed road traffic offences in escaping from violence : allowed as the circumstances dictated the crime rather than a person