Cases For Chapter 1

Question 1

Sweet v Parsley 1970

Answer 1

Strict liability

Case: landlord didn’t know her attendance was smoking cannabis in her property. She was charged with allowing use of drugs contrary to s5(6) DDA 1965. Found liable but later cleared on appeal. Statute didn’t mention MR

PoL:
When ever a section is silent as to MR, it will be presumed that MR is required and it is not one of strict liability

Question 2

S170 Road Traffic Act 1988

Answer 2

Liability for omission

What is it? Offence to fail to stop and give information after being involved in an accident resulting in personal injury or damage to property.

PoL: omission is specifically defined in the act

Question 3

Cato 1976

Answer 3

Causation in law/ breaks in chain

Case: D injected V with heroin several times one evening, at Vs request. The intoxication caused respiratory failure . D guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

PoL:
1.Ds actions were more than a de minimus cause of death (Causation in law)

2. As D both supplied and injected V, the chain of causation is unbroken. Vs consent does not relieve D.

Question 4

Miller 1983

Answer 4

Omission/ duty/dangerous situation/ coincidence of AR and MR

Case: tramp fell sleep with lit cigarette. Just caught alight. Tramp left to burn and went to another room. guilty of criminal damage.

PoL: 1. Deliberate/accidental creation of a dangerous situation. (Omission) creates a duty.
2. Continuing AR. MR formed after AR complete

Question 5

Latimer 1886

Answer 5

Doctrine of transferred malice

Case: D aimed belt at X but accidentally hit V and wounded him. MR was transferred

PoL: no requirement in statute that his MR should relate to named victim

Question 6

Mitchell 1983

Answer 6

Doctrine of transferred malice

Case: D pushed out of the man in the post office queue, who fell onto 89-year-old lady, breaking her hip. She died. Convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.

PoL:
There is no requirement that the unlawful act to be directed at the victim

Question 7

Pagett 1983

Answer 7

Causation in fact/ cause law/intervening events

Case: D kidnapped V and used her as a human shield. Police shot at him and killed her.

PoL:

1. Causation in fact “but for “and made a significant contribution, so causation in law also.
2. Intervening acts by police were reasonably foreseeable consequence of Ds conduct – death not too remote from Ds acts

Question 8

Thabo Meli 1954

Answer 8

Coincidence of AR/MR- single transaction

Case: D and others intended to kill v. Beat and rolled down hill and left for dead. D argued no coincidence of AR and MR as D believed him dead already. Convicted.

PoL: act of beating and throwing off cliff was one continuing act.

Question 9

Jordan 1956

Answer 9

Breaks in chain/ medical

Case: V had mostly recovered from injuries inflicted by D when Dr gave a drug he was known to be intolerant to and excessive IV fluids. V died. Dr broke the chain of causation

PoL: only “palpably wrong” medical actions will break the chain of causation. Case not followed very often.

Question 10

Pitwood 1902

Answer 10

Duty/ omission/contract

Case: level crossing keeper did not close rail gates when contracted to do so. Person killed crossing the line. Guilty of manslaughter.

PoL: entering into a contract can mean unemployed owes a duty of care to employer and any other person at risk of injury or damage. omission

Question 11

Caldwell

Answer 11

Case

PoL

Question 12

Mohan 1976

Answer 12

Direct intent

Case: D responded to the police officer’s signal to stop by slowing down but then accelerated towards the officer. The officer moved out of the way and Mohan drove off. Mohan was charged with attempt to cause bodily harm by wanton driving at a constable.

“A decision to bring about, so far as it lies within the defendants powers, the criminal consequence, no matter whether the defendant desired that consequence of his act or not…” Mohan

Question 13

Children and Young Persons Act 1933

Answer 13

Statutory liability for omissions

PoL: parents have statutory obligations to their children and there is a specific crime of neglect of a child

Question 14

Cheshire 1991

🔫

Answer 14

Causation/ breaks in chain (medical)

Case: D shot man. Man taken to hospital and operated on. He then needed a tracheotomy. Several weeks later he died from complications from the trachy. D guilty of murder.

PoL:

1. For causation qu, Ds act does not necessarily need to be the Sole cause as long as it contributed significantly.
2. Negligent medical treatment only break chain of causation if “ so independent of “Ds acts and in itself so potent in causing death”

Question 15

Pembliton 1874

Answer 15

Doctrine of transferred malice

Case: D through stone at people. Missed and hit and broke a window. MR not transferred.

PoL:
Doctrine of transferred malice inapplicable where Ds intention had not been to cause the type of harm that actually occurred

Question 16

Kennedy 2007

Answer 16

Causation/ breaks in chain/ acts of V

Case: D prepared a syringe for V, who injected himself and died. HoL held that Ds actions were not the cause of death.

PoL:
A free and voluntary act by V always breaks chain of causation

Question 17

G and Another 2003

Test for subjective recklessness

This test is primarily a subjective test

Answer 17

Subjective recklessness***

Case: 2 boys set fire to newspapers- fire spread and caused £1m damage to a shop

PoL: recklessness involves the conscious taking of an unjustified risk.

D must recognise risk (subjective). Once he is aware of it but takes it anyway, he is then
judged by standards of ordinary, reasonable man

Question 18

Lowe 1973

Answer 18

Case: D failed to call Dr for nine week old child when ill. Child died. Not guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

PoL: if the definition of the offence uses the word “Act”, it is unlikely that in an omission will suffice. In Lowe 1973 it was held that unlawful act manslaughter can be committed only by an act

Question 19

Woollin 1998

Answer 19

MR/ indirect intent

Case: D threw 3 month old child in anger. Child died. Pros accepted death/GBH not his aim or purpose

PoL: confirmed Nedrick test ie D foresaw death/GBH as virtual certainty.
Question of intent for jury.

Question 20

R v White 1910

Answer 20

Causation in fact/but for test

Case: D tried to kill mother with poison, but she died of a heart attack before the poison could kill her. Acquitted of murder.

PoL: causal link between actions and consequences must be shown. ‘But for’ what the defendant did…

Question 21

Rafferty (Andrew Paul) (2007)

Answer 21

Case: V assaulted and robbed by all co-defendants. D1 then left the scene whilst D2 and D3 drowned the unconscious V. D1 appeal to his conviction for murder and was acquitted

PoL:
Final act of drowning V was a new and intervening act in the chain of events and was fundamentally different to what the appellant had contemplated

Question 22

Blaue 1976

Answer 22

Breaks in chain/thin skull rule
“D must take his victim as he finds him”
Case: V refused a blood transfusion after being stopped. She died. D convicted of manslaughter.

PoL:
1. If V makes injury worse by neglect/maltreatment, D causes whole of injuries.

2. Thin skull rule “extends to the whole man, not just physical man “

Contrast this with Dhaliwal 2006

Question 23

Smith 1959

🔪

Answer 23

Legal causation

Case: V stabbed in a fight, then dragged to a Doctor Who didn’t treat properly. V died. D still liable.

PoL: Ds act was held to be “operating and substantial “ cause of death. Rough handling/for treatment did not break the chain of causation.

Question 24

Nedrick 1986

Answer 24

MR/ indirect intent

Case: D poured paraffin through letterbox of rival and set fire to it. v killed in fire.

PoL: jury may infer oblique intent for murder if death/GBH a virtual certainty and D foresaw this.

Question 25

Gibbins and Proctor 1918

Answer 25

Duty/omission/special relationship

Case: D1 convicted of the murder of his child as food witheld from V by his partner. As father, D1 had a duty to act and ensure his child was fed

Question 26

Roberts 1971

Answer 26

Breaks in chain/escape/ foreseeability

Case: D held to have caused Vs injuries when V jumped from his car to avoid sexual assault. Vs actions were reasonably foreseeable. D guilty

PoL: in escape cases, D causes the injury unless Vs actions were not reasonably foreseeable.
The “daftness test”
Marjoram 2000 confirms foreseeability is objective

Question 27

S5 Sexual Offences Act 2003

Answer 27

Strict liability

Statute: rape of a child under 13.

PoL:
P need not prove that D had MR relating to the age of victim

Question 28

Dytham 1979

Answer 28

Duty/omission/public office

Case: policeman took no action to stop V being beaten to death outside a nightclub.

PoL:
Common law offence of misconduct in public office. Policeman had a duty to act and did not. Misconduct in public office can be committed by an omission.

Question 29

Fagan v Metropolitan Pokice Commisioner 1968

Answer 29

Coincidence of AR and MR

Case: D accidentally stopped car on foot and then refused to move it

PoL: D became liable when he had the MR. The AR continued for the whole time the car was on the foot. When D became aware, he developed the MR and liability was complete

Question 30

Marjoram 2000

Answer 30

Foreseeability

Use objective test for reasonable foreseeability in escape cases/ breaks in chain.

Use with Roberts 1971

Question 31

Stone And Dobinson 1977

Answer 31

Duty/ omission/ vol assumption of r

Case: Bedbound anorexic died from lack of care. Ds had previously given care. Guilty of manslaughter.

PoL: voluntary assumption of responsibility. Ommission

Question 32

Gemma Evans 2009

Answer 32

Omissions/duty/ dangerous situation

Case: D prepped heroin and gave it to V to self inject. Realised v suffering from effects of overdose but did not call for medical help. When D checked in morning V was dead.

PoL: D had created a dangerous situation and failed to act to deal with the danger.

Question 33

Cunningham 1957

Answer 33

Recklessness (subjective)

Case:

PoL: The original test for subjective recklessness