Crime Law

Hill v Baxter

For AR conduct must be voluntary. Automatism - “a person should not be made liable at the criminal law who, through no fault of his own, becomes unconscious when driving, as, for example, a person who has been struck by a stone or overcome by a sudden illness, or when the car has been put temporarily out of his control owing to his being attacked by a swarm of bees”

Road Traffic Act 1988

Drink-driving - conduct crime & Failing to wear a seatbelt or breath specimen, omission from statutory duty

s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Assault occasioning ABH - consequence crime

Marchant v Muntz

Consequence crime - although a death happened, there was no act of dangerous driving, so no crime was committed

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Being in possession of a controlled drug, state of affairs crime

Larsonneur

Deported illegal alien, state of affairs crime, was a crime of absolute liability

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Statutory duty - failing to muzzle a dangerous dog in public

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

Statutory duty - neglecting a child

Pitwood

Omission from contractual duty

Dytham

Omission from official position

Gibbins & Proctor

Omission from special relationship, parents’ failure to feed their daughter who starved to death was enough for the AR of murder

Stone & Dobinson

Duty undertaken voluntarily - Ds took in relative and failed to look after her, liable for her death

Miller (1983)

omission from creating a dangerous situation

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

If discontinuing treatment is in the best interests of the patient then it is not an omission so doesn't form the AR

White

No factual causation. He tried to commit murder but did not actually kill his mother. He was convicted of attempted murder

Pagett

Factual causation

Hughes

No legal causation. But for D driving on the road, V would not have collided with him but the collision was entirely V’s fault. Must be a “legally effective” cause of the consequence

Kimsey

Judge specified doesn't have to be principal cause, just has to be more than minimal cause - legal causation

Benge

D substantially caused the death through his negligence of failing to give adequate warning to train

Blaue

Thin skull rule, Jehovah's witness

Roberts

Chain of causation not broken, victim's own conduct

Williams

Chain of causation broken, victim's own conduct

Kennedy (No.2)

free, voluntary and informed action by the victim (or a third party) can break the chain of causation

Smith

Poor medical treatment didn't break chain of causation

Cheshire

Rare complications 2 months later didn't break chain of causation

Jordan

Chain of causation from medical treatment as the medical treatment was "palpably wrong" and the original wounds had virtually healed

Malcharek & Steel

doctors can switch off a life support machine when D is brain dead as no longer a reasonable creature in being

Mohan

Direct intent defined as "a decision to bring about the prohibited consequence", no matter whether D desired the consequence or not

Woollin

A jury not entitled to find indirect intention unless sure that death or serious bodily harm was appreciated by D as a virtual certainty as a result of D's actions

Cunningham

Wasn't reckless D wasn't aware of a risk of the consequence happening, subjective test

R v G

Criminal damage is a crime which can be committed recklessly, however in this case Ds (aged 11 & 13) had not realised danger of fire spreading to a nearby supermarket so not reckless as hadn’t foreseen it

Adomako

Liable for GNM, decided civil principles of negligence apply, was stressed that only liable if having regard to the risk of death involved, D's acts or omissions were so bad in the circumstances that it was criminal negligence

Callow v Tillstone

strict liability offence, no MR needed

Cundy v Le Cocq

Strict liability - D charged with selling alcohol to a drunk person, it didn’t matter that D didn’t know the person was drunk

Harrow v Shah

Strict liability - the owners were liable despite telling their staff not to sell tickets to anyone underage

Sweet v Parsley

reiterated the general rule MR is required in order for D to be guilty of a crime

B v DPP

Court quashed 15 year old D’s conviction of inciting a child under 14 to commit gross indecency as they said MR was needed for this serious offence

Alphacell v Woodward

Factory fined for polluting a river as was in public interest to protect the river, MR was not needed as was a matter of social concern/public safety

Latimer

D aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub and bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face, transferred malice

Gnango

A passer-by was shot in a gang shootout in which D had participated, was still guilty even though didn't shoot killing shot under joint enterprise, the one who wasn't caught would have had MR from transferred malice

Pembliton

no transferred malice, two different types of crime

Fagan

continuing act

Thabo Meli

Series of connected acts

The unlawful killing of a reasonable creature in being under the King's [or Queen's] Peace with malice aforethought, express or implied

Definition of murder by Lord Coke

Bland

Doctors may discontinue treatment in exceptional cases

Re A (Conjoined Twins)

It was lawful for doctor to operate on conjoined twins to save one, knowing it would end the life of the other

A-G's Reference (No.3 of 1994)

foetus killed in the womb cannot be the victim of murder, a child must have an existence independent of the mother to be considered a 'human being'

Blackman

King's/Queen's peace

Vickers

Intention to inflict GBH is enough for murder

Matthews & Alleyne

Ds pushed V from a bridge into a fast-flowing river, knowing he couldn’t swim. Foresight of a consequence as a virtual certainty is only evidence from which a jury may find intention

S.8 Criminal Justice Act 1967

Test for intention is subjective, based on what D thought, not what reasonable person would think

s.54(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Loss of control requirements

Jewell

No loss of self-control

s.54(2) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

loss of control need not be sudden, can be cumulative impact of earlier events

s.54(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Excludes "considered desire for revenge"

s.55(3) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

"fear" trigger

s.55(4) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

"anger" trigger

Ward

Fear trigger case

Ahluwalia

Failed on provocation since her reaction was delayed and was before the Act came out

Zebedee

Didn't qualify for anger trigger

Hatter

Breakup of a relationship itself won't normally constitute circumstances of an extremely grave character, didn't qualify for anger trigger

Clinton

sexual infidelity is disregarded as a qualifying trigger

s.55(6) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Limitations in qualifying trigger

Dawes

Limitations on qualifying trigger, incitement

s.54(1)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Requires that a person of D's sex and age, with normal degree of tolerance & self-restraint & in circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or similar way

s.54(3) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

jury must look at all of D's circumstances apart from ones only relevant to D's general capacity for tolerance and self-restraint

Rejmanski

mental illness may be relevant circumstance but not relevant to normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint

Asmelash

Voluntary intoxication not a "circumstance" for the purposes of the normal person test

Christian

Might have reacted in the same or similar way to D

Van Dongen

D repeatedly kicked V about the head and body when V was lying on the ground. While a normal person may have lost control, they would not have reacted in this way

s.54(5) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

If sufficient evidence is adduced, the jury must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not

s.2 Homicide Act 1957

Diminished responsibility is defined

s.52 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Diminished responsibility amended. AMF, RMC, substantial impairment, provides explanation

Byrne

AMF & to exercise self-control

Golds

Psychotic condition/the impairment must be beyond merely trivial, but D's mental functioning need not be totally impaired, RMC, substantial impairment

Boots

Post-natal depression, RMC

Brennan

Mental disorder, RMC

Wood

Alcohol dependency syndrome, RMC. If consumption isn't due to addiction, it's classed as voluntary drinking and its effects cannot be considered

Dietschmann

Depressive illness. If D is already suffering from an AMF and has taken drugs or alcohol, the defence will be available if D can satisfy the jury that, despite the drink, his abnormality was a substantial impairment which explained the killing

Jama

Asperger's syndrome, RMC

Hobson

battered spouses' syndrome, RMC

s.52(1A)(a) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

To understand the nature of his conduct

s.52(1A)(b) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

To form a rational judgement

s.52(1A)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

To exercise self-control

s.52(1)(c) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

D has to prove that the AMF provided an explanation for his acts (or omissions)

s.52(1B) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

An AMF will provide an explanation for D's conduct if it causes, or is a significant contributory factor in causing D to carry out the conduct

Dowds

Voluntary intoxication at the time of the killing cannot be used as a defence of DR, not a RMC

Newbury and Jones

unlawful act can be criminal damage. D only needs to have the MR of the unlawful act, not necessary to prove that D foresaw any harm for his act

Lowe

An omission is insufficient for UAM

Lamb

No unlawful act

Watson

unlawful act can be burglary, became dangerous as soon as the old man’s frailty would have been apparent to the reasonable person

Church

The unlawful act must be "dangerous" on an objective test. Such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to, at least, the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm

Goodfellow

D convicted of UAM, it didn't matter that his act wasn't directed at anyone

JM & SM

The test for danger is whether a sober and reasonable person would foresee the risk of some harm. It did not matter that they would not foresee the particular type of harm that occurred

Dawson

danger, must be a risk of physical harm

Bristow, Dunn and Delay

circumstances meant that reasonable and sober person would foresee risk of some harm

Kennedy

V's voluntary act broke the chain of causation, UAM

Singh

GNM, duty of care, foreseeable risk

Litchfiled

Duty of care, GNM

Winter

Ds owed a duty of care to inform firefighters attending a fire at their premises that they were storing unlicensed fireworks. GNM, duty of care