law cases

damn

greenberg 1972

actus reus + mens rea not happening at the same time so they were found not guilty of theft under theft act 1968

new theft act (1978) was introduced because of cases like this

Hill v Baxter (1958)

judge gave examples of things that cause reflex actions (swarm of bees, heart attack, struck on head by stone)

Leicester V Pearson 1952

physical force - someone else made you act in a certain way.

shunting - one car going into the back of another

R v Quick (1973)

involuntary act, automatism - not in control of body. violent nurse case (self - induced through negligence doesn't count)

r v thomas 2009

automatism - wife strangler

R v Miller (1983)

no liability for failing to act (general rule)

R v Pittwood (1902)

exception to omission, train gatekeeper

DUTY ARISING FROM A CONTRACT

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

exception to omission, child starvation

DUTY DUE TO A RELATIONSHIP

R v dytham 1983

exception to omission, neglectful cop (different employment rights so not duty due to a contract)

PUBLIC DUTY

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)

exception to omission, anorexic sister

DUTY ARISING FROM A VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY

R v Miller (1983)

exception to omission, smoking squatter caused fire but didn't do anything

DUTY DUE TO D'S PRIOR CONDUCT (DUTY TO MINIMISE)

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)

test case (no disagreement - wanted a precedent set), if discontinuance of medical treatment is in the best interest of the patient, then failure to act will not be a guilty act

Larsonneur (1933)

wrong place wrong time, very rare, women shipped to Ireland from england told if she came back she'd be arrested, wasn't accepted in ireland

INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION LEADS TO AN ARREST

R v White (1910)

The D put cyanide in his mum's tea to kill her but she had a heart attack before drinking it.

He was not criminally liable for her death as he did not cause it but he clearly attempted to cause it so he was guilty of attempted murder.

(insufficient dose of poison, if he had given her sugar instead, he would have been acquitted)

no factual causation

r v pagget 1983

uses pregnant gf as a shield in police shooting

'but for' test worked

factual causation present

R v Kimsey (1996)

woman loses control in car race with bf, 'but for' test works. bf stil has responsibility for death - doesn't have to be THE cause of death, but has to be A cause of death

de minimis principle

Bushell's Case 1670

judge cannot coerce a jury into a verdict

R v McKenna 1960

judge cannot coerce a jury into a verdict

R v Mason (1980)

convicted burglar appealed on ground that jury had been vetted on previous convictions

R v Ford (1989)

jury cannot be challenged on the grounds isn't multi racial (challenge to the array)

morris 1991

challenge for case - challenged must be lodged before juror is sworn in

R v Hart

unforeseen natural events

so extraordinary + unpredictable

R v Jordan

is medical treatment palpably wrong

R v Smith

was D's act the operating and substantial cause of V's death

R v Malcherek

life support does not break chain of causation

R v Cheshire

shot in chippy

cause of death not independent of original act

R v Roberts

is V's acts reasonably foreseeable?

sexual advances so jump out of car

r v williams + davis

was V's acts 'so daft' that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee?

hitchhiker jumping out of car

r v blaue

Thin skull rule

R v Mohan

intention

purpose of the act / what D wants to happen

R v Maloney

intention is a matter for the jury

Chandler v DPP

Motive is not the same as intention - what matters is intending the action by which one's ulterior motive is achieved

R v Wollin

test for oblique intention

R v Cunningham

recklessness

d has forseen the particular harm might be done and yet still takes the risk of it

Harrow LBC v Shah

D sold a lottery ticket to a 13yr old, even with no MR, it was held to be a strict liability offence

Smedleys v Breed

food safety

Alphacell v Woodward

Example of strict liability. (Pollution)

atkinson v sir alfred mcalphine

health/safety

R v Latimer

no requirement that mr should relate to a named victim

R v Mitchell

mr transfers through intended victim to the actual victim

R v Pembliton

Transferred mens rea- threw stones into crowd but accidentally broke window- can't transfer intent between different crimes

Fagan v MPC

Continuing act

R v Church

Mens rea followed by actus reus- knocked out woman- threw her into a river thinking she was dead- drowned- act within series of acts

Thebo Meli

tries to kill, thinks dead, throws off cliff, v dies of exposure

Tuberville v Savage (1669)

Words can negate an assault

'if not for assize time i would not take such language'

Light (1857)

raised sword above wifes head, if not for the bloody police man outside id split ur head open. assault = raising sword

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station

test for immediacy

did not know what d was going to do next, but whatever he was going to do was something of a violent nature

R v Burstow

the 'possibility' of an immediate attack

does not have to be rational

savage

mens rea for assault, chucks drink in someones face

Collins v Wilcock

"Any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to battery"

thomas

touching a persons clothes is the same as touching the person

martin

indirect battery

DPP v K

Indirect battery (acid in hand dryer)

Haystead

D attacked X who was holding a baby. X dropped the baby to the floor.

This was an indirect battery against the baby.

Santana-Bermudez

battery can be caused by an omission - where there is a duty to act

needle in pocket

Brown and others

hostility is a necessary element

if force is unlawful then it is necessarily hostile

Venna

Recklessness is enough for the MR of assault/battery

T v DPP

Loss of consciousness is ABH

R v Smith 2006

hair is to be treated as part of the body

Miller

'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim'

physical injury

Chan Fook

'mere emotions such as panic, fear, distress will not suffice'

r v morrison

intention to resist arrest

s.18

Burstow

inflict + cause mean the same thing - lord goff

JCC v Eisenhower

A wound requires a break in the continuity of the whole skin

saunders

GBH means serious harm

R v Bollom

ruled that if victim is elderly/vulnerable/young child that can make injuries more serious

Burstow

Serious psychiatric injury can amount to GBH

brown + stratton

if victim suffers more than one injury which taken as a whole amount to serious harm - this can be gbh

R v Dica

removing requirements for common assault (burstow) let to development of biological GBH

r v mabanda

hiv gbh