Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Criminal Law > Case Law > Flashcards

Case Law Flashcards

(58 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Hugh Mitchell (1856) 2 Irv 488

A

Voluntary Acts
Husband attacked wife with baby in her arms who squeezed to protect but ended up killing baby. She was an innocent agent so not criminally responsible.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Brennan v HMA

A

Automatism
Killed father after LSD microdot and 20-25 pints
His defence of insanity failed as courts said they had no defence of temporary insanity
He voluntarily consumed drugs and alcohol

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Ebsworth v HMA

A

Automatism
Accused had broken leg so took large mixture of prescribed and illegal drugs
Assaulted someone
Ebsworth was reckless so could not plea the defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Simon Fraser (1878)

A

Automatism- naturally induced sleep
Claimed he was acting out his dreams whilst asleep
He woke up to his dead son
Solution was to confine him to sleep in a locked room for the rest of his life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

MacLeod v Mathieson

A

Automatism- diabetes
Charged with careless driving
He tried to argue he was suffering an attack at the time and not in control
However he had diabetes 18-20 years so knew the risks of driving

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Ross v HMA

Clarified by Sorely v HMA

A

Automatism
Accused had been spiked and went on to commit violent crimes
He was first charged because old law said automatism only got you a reduced sentence
On appeal the charge was dropped as they reviewed the old law and saw acquittal as more appropriate:
1. Not self-induced
2. Not bound to foresee
3. Resulting in total alienation of reason and loss of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Baxter v HMA

A

Incitement
Development of plot of land being held back by owner
Baxter tried to get an employee to kill the party
Baxter argued no agreement was met and he just wanted to appear serious
But the intention that the party commit the crime is enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

HMA v Megrahi

A

Conspiracy
Lockerbie bombing
Courts held that they didn’t need to know both parties, just that an agreement was reached

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

HMA v Mackenzie

A

Attempt- irrevocability theory
Husband and wife making copies of recipes considering selling them
Didn’t actually go through with it so weren’t convicted as the law doesn’t allow for unfulfilled intents and preparations which have not yet cumulated into an irrevocable act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Janet Ramage, Hume, Commentaries

A

Attempt- last act theory
Poisoning case
The last act of leaving the poison out to drink was considered a clear attempt at murder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

HMA v Camerons

A

Attempt- perpetration theory
Attempted fraud on insurance company by faking robbery
Then failed to file the claim but they attempted which was enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bonar and Hogg v MacLeod

A

Art and part
Police officers convicted of assault on art and part basis
Bonar’s non action was considered as taking part in the assault of prisoner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Cadona v HMA

A

Art and part- going beyond the common plan

Test- were the unplanned actions reasonably foreseeable?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

HMA v Johnstone and Stewart

A

Art and part- providing material assistance
Johnstone have name of Stewart (abortionist) to a women
Johnstone not convicted because she was not part of common plan and did not know Stewart

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

HMA v Lappen

A

Art and part- common purpose
Court held that it was not the actions of each individual in the robbery but whether they were all part of the common plan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Geo Kerr and others (1871)

A

Art and part- is observing enough?
Witnessed group of friends rape a woman
Was not convicted as mere presence not enough and no duty to act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Little v HMA

A

Art and part- instigation
Recruited someone to kill her husband which he did
Then three people moved body and paid a fee of £70
All as equally responsible on art and part basis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Dewar v HM Advocate

A

No reasonable opportunity to escape doesn’t apply when the accused is defending someone else

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Hm Advocate v Doherty

A

Self-defence
“You do not need an exact proportion of injury and retaliation; it is not a matter that you weigh on too fine scales”
Also sets out 3 requirements for self-defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

McBrearty v HM Advocate

A

Self-defence- reasonable opportunity to escape

Accused was being attacked in public so could’ve ran away but chose to stab and kill victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

McCluskey v HM Advocate

A

Self-defence- Force must be proportionate

Push onto bed and threatening words not enough to justify killing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Owens v HM Advocate

A

Self-defence, Imminent danger

Defence still applies if accused wrongfully but reasonably believes that an attack was imminent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Pollock v HMA

A

Self-defence, force used must be proportionate
Homeless man attacked and killed another who was threatening his girlfriend but he acted in a way far more savage than self defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Drury v HM Advocate

Study These Flashcards
A

Provocation
He saw a man leaving his girlfriends house adjusting his clothes then beat and killed him
Courts not satisfied with his degree of response with the hammer

25
Gillon v HM Advocate
Retaliation must not be “grossly disproportionate”
26
Hill v HM Advocate
Provocation Soldier shot wife and lover after he found out they were having an affair, his defence was successful getting him culpable homicide
27
D v Donnelly
Necessity- no other reasonable course of action Claimed she had been sexually assaulted and drove away from club over alcohol limit She could have phoned police
28
Dawson v Dickson
Necessity- threat must dominate mind of individual Fire man crashed in to vehicle under influence He admitted he would move fire engine anyways which let his defence down
29
Moss v Howdle (key authority for necessity)
Sped up after passenger cried out in pain Turned out to be only cramp Defence wasn’t available as he oils have pulled over
30
Cochrane v HM Advocate
Coercion- the objective or ordinary person test | The standard is “An ordinary sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused”
31
Thomson v HM Advocate (key authority for coercion)
Sets out three requirements 1. immediate threat of death/serious harm 2. Objective/ordinary person test 3. Must not have risked being subject to coercion
32
Trotter v HM Advocate
Coercion- imminent risk of death/serious harm | T carried drugs into prison out of fear but could have alerted officials
33
Quinn v Lees
Assault- does it have to be direct or indirect? Accused set dog on teenagers The court held that it is possible to commit assault via a third party
34
Atkinson v HMA
Assault Accused leapt over counter scaring cashier Argued they didn’t injure anyone Court held that injury isn’t always necessary
35
Lord Advocates Reference (No 2 of 1992) (leading authority of assault for men’s rea)
Presentation of a fake hand gun at attempted robbery Argued it was never intended to hurt anyone Historically men’s rea is considered “evil intent” In this case the court held that evil intent just meant a deliberate act
36
Roberts v Hamilton
Assault- transferred assault Woman went to strike someone with pole but hit someone else Hume ‘doctrine of intention’ the court will allow intent to be transferred in these circumstances
37
Smart v HMA
Cannot consent to assault
38
Hussain v Houston
Assaulted women during medical exam He claimed they consulted Courts recognised this could be possible but once you do anything out with the scope of standard procedure you are in the territory of assault
39
Cadona v Cardle
Assault- force may be lawful Citizens arrest not possible in this case as culprit was screaming in pain of being detained and also Cadona had not seen him smash the window himself
40
Kirkwood v HMA
Aggravated assault to severe internal injury | Swung hammer to someone’s groin which caused severe internal damage
41
McCluskey v HMA 1989
Actus reus of murder- killing a living being Assaulted pregnant woman leading to babies death Court held that he was still the source of the babies death so was charged with murder
42
Drury v HMA in relation to murder?
Differentiates between killing in self defence and murder | Court said must be more than intention to kill but also wicked intent
43
John Smith (1838)
Theft Shows modern law of appropriation Found a wallet with ID meaning it could have been returned Had been appropriated because that person no longer had control of their property Property of another without their consent
44
Strathern v Seaforth
Theft Mens rea of intention to deprive permanently Convicted of taking of a car not theft (but they would be now)
45
Black v Carmichael
Mens rea of theft to deprive temporarily | Wheel clamping on private car park is theft and extortion unless authorised by statute
46
Fowler v O’Brien
Mens rea of theft to deprive indefinitely | Stole bike which they had no definite time of returning
47
Kidston v Annan
Mens rea of theft to deprive for nefarious purpose | Refusal to return TV after a repair neither party agreed to
48
Kane v Friel
Theft | Suggests that evidence of dishonesty is required as charge was dropped in this case with no evidence of dishonesty
49
Cromar v HMA
Robbery Violence takes the act out of ‘theft by surprise’ category Accused ran behind and snapped bag which was considered enough violence for robbery
50
O’Niell v HMA
Robbery Complainer was resisting getting bag stolen and in the prices received grazes to the face Were able to demonstrate there was no intention to do bodily harm but charged for robbery
51
Flynn v HMA
Robbery | This case demonstrates of violence is deleted from the charge the accused can only be convicted of theft
52
James Paton (1888) 3 Irv 208
Fraud- false pretence | Inflated skin of bulls and extended horns in order to sell
53
Adcock v Archibald
Fraud- practical result | Fraud to do with amount mined and amount paid
54
Mather v HMA
Fraud- causation The pretence must be the cause of victims actings Negotiated prices for goods and took them home and returned to pay for them later He produced a cheque that bounced However it wasn’t the payment with the cheque that caused him to be in possession of the goods
55
Mackenzie v Skeen
Fraud- mens rea= intention to produce a result by falsehood | Because this is a crime of intention carelessness of what you do and say is not enough
56
Wither v Adie
Fire raising- actus reus damaging or destroying of corporeal property or heritable property by fire belonging to another without consent In this case set fire to shoe laces Tried to argue that they hadn’t set fire to property but a person Got round this because accused did intentionally set fire to shoe laces which was enough
57
Blane v HMA
Mens rea of fire raising- distinction between crime of wilful and culpable and reckless Set fire to room but ended up setting fire to whole building He set fire to paper in his own room but other things caught fire In this case judges decided that actual intention must be proved in relation to item in question for wilful fire raising
58
McCue v Currie
Fire raising Can’t be accidental Theft in caravan, using lighter to see Lighter exploded and set fire to caravan No intention to set fire, and was also not culpable and reckless because he expressly said it was an accident

Criminal Law (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions