Flashcards in Cases Deck (76):
R v Miller
D created dangerous situation which created a duty to act
R v Church
D will be liable if the entire incident viewed as a whole could be viewed as a series of events designed to cause death or GBH. Elements of the offence will be satisfied provided AR and MR occur somewhere during a single transaction.
R v White
Factual causation - "but for" test
Whether V would have died if it wasn't for the act of D? Not in this case. D not liable.
R v Pagett
D's act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death provided that it contributed significantly to that result.
R v Jordan
Legal causation - unless palpably wrong treatment (medical interventions)
R v Cheshire
D liable even if negligent treatment (inevitable misdiagnosis and routine errors) as D caused V to necessitate medical treatment
R v Roberts
The chain of causation will be broken only if V's actions were "so daft" as to be unforeseeable
Think skull rule - take V as you find him, characteristics that make V vulnerable.
JW, blood transfusion
R v Pittwood
Contract - close gates - forgot - train - death
A person under contact will be liable for harmful consequences of his failure to perform his contractual obligations. Duty extends to those reasonably affected by the omission, not just the other party to the contract.
Prior dangerous act
Mother, daughter, sister, drugs
No liability, except when duty to act!
D's conduct must be a culpable cause
Prior agreement to support
Aunt and niece
Kennedy No 2
Free deliberate and informed act of third party will break the chain of causation.
Self-injection of drugs by V
Stone and Dobinson
Voluntary assumption of care
Anorexia, not fed, death
Close blood relationship
Close blood relationships
R v Woolin
TEST FOR OBLIQUE INTENTION AND VIRTUAL CERTAINTY
A jury may find that D intended the outcome if it was a virtually certain consequence of his actions and he realised this was the case
R v Cunnigham
Test for recklessness in offences NOT involving criminal damage
The particular D must foresee that a particular type of harm might be done and yet ha gone on to take the risk of it, rather than an ordinary person (subjective test)
R v G
Children, tesco, trash, fire
Test for recklessness only in offences involving criminal damage
A person acts recklessly with respect to:
A) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that exists or will exist
B) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
And it is in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk (subj test)
Transferred malice, if AR matches, MR may be transferred
Battery to another
R v Griffen
Psychological commitment in attempt
Children - mother - kidnap
More than merely preparatory
Merely preparatory act comes to an end and the proper crimes commences
Irrelevant whether consequence of attempt is different (PC - drive - off - attempt - ABH)
R v Jackson
CONSPIRACY - specified course of conduct
Contingent plan to commit an offence if it was necessary (or possible) was still a plan to commit an offence.
Re AG's Reference (No 1 of 1975)
Procuring implies causation not consensus
Abetting and counselling imply consensus not causation
Aiding requires actual assistance but neither consensus nor causation
R v Bainbridge
D must know the type of crime (not the setting) so knowing that the cutting equipment was going to be use for burglary would suffice to establish MR for secondary liability
Maxwell v DPP for Northern Ireland
Foresight of a range of possible offences would be enough, precise nature of the offence is not needed
Driver - terrorists - pub
R v Rook
Withdrawal of participation
There is no requirement that a persona actually be present at the commission of the crime in order to attract accessorise liability
R v Becerra
Communication of withdrawal must be timely and "serve unequivocal notice upon the other party that if he proceeds upon it he does to without further aid and assistance of those who withdraw"
The necessity of communication of withdrawal was waived in relation to spontaneous violence
R v Robinson
Situation characterised as a build up of tension culminating in violence rather than a truly spontaneous attack, d who initiated an attack would only be able to withdraw in exception circumstances and must give unequivocal communication to others that he was withdrawing.
R v Byrne
Diminished responsibility could cover situations in which D suffered from uncontrollable urged
R v Lamb
UDA manslaughter required a criminally unlawful act. In twh absence of AR and MR for common assault being established, there was no unlawful act upon which liability for UDA mans. could be constructed.
R v Lowe
UDA manslaughter required a positive act. An omission even a deliberate one will not suffice.
R v Church
Not enough to that an unlawful act caused death, the unlawful act most be one that "sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to the ricks or some (albeit not serious) harm.
R v Newbury and Jones
Provided that D intentionally does an act which is both unlawful and dangerous, he need not to recognise its dangerousness; there is no requirement that D foresees a risk of harm to other arising from his unlawful act.
R v Adomako
Gross negligence manslaughter
D's conduct must have departed from the prow or standard of care incumbent upon him.
When a person holds themselves out as posses isn't some special knowledge or skill then their conduct will be judged against the reasonably competent in the field.
R v Ireland
Silent calls amount to a form of positive communication
R v Constanza
The letter caused an apprehension of violence at some time not excluding immediate future.
R v Brown
Consent was no defence to charges arising from injuries inflicted during sadomasochistis homosexual encounters. It is not in the public interest that the people cause each other injury for no good reason.
R v Wilson
What happens between husband and wife in the privacy of the their home should not concern the criminal law.
Branding of H's initials on W's buttocks
ABH is harm that is more than merely transient or trifling
R v Lewis
V locked herself in the bedroom. D started to break down the door so V jumped out of the window to escape. His common assault (breaking down the door caused her to apprehend immediate unlawful violence) so it was held to be the cause of the injuries sustained in the fall.
R v Robert
V jumped out of the moving vehicle because D interfered with V's clothing (battery). Held that D's battery caused the injuries sustained by V in the fall.
R v Ireland + R v Burstow
Harm to a person's mind that amounts to a recognised medical condition falls within bodily harm
R v Savage
MR of s47 required intention or subj recklessness in relation to common assault or battery only. There was no requirement of intention or foresight in respect of the injury caused by the assault or battery (assault occasioning ABH is called an offence of half MR)
Wounding or inflicting GBH s20
Dica and Konzani - defence of consent will only be available if V gave informed consent, ie in the knowledge of D's HIV status.
DPP v Parmenter
Standard of recklessness is subjective upon what D actually foresaw not what he ought to have foreseen.
Foresight of the consequences was required but not foresight of their magnitude. Mowatt - foresight of some harm will suffice. It is easier then go establish recklessness in relation to s 20 than it would be if a pure form of Cunningham recklessness was applied.
Oxford v Moss
Confidential information does not amount to property (theft)
Turner No 2
D was held guilty of theft for removing his own car from a garage where it had undergone repair. This was because the garage was in possession of the car so it belonged to them for the purposes of theft.
Lawrence v MPC
Tourist, cab, wallet
Whether the rights of the owner had been assumed and the issue of consent was irrelevant.
R v Morris
Assumption of any one of the rights of the owner amounts to appropriation
DPP v Gomez
Possible appropriation despite owner's consent
Low intelligence - account - transfer
Receipt of a gift that among fed to a valid transfer of ownership at civil law could still amount to theft if it was dishonestly induced by D
AG's reference No 1 of 1983
Property received by mistake - D must make restoration when aware of mistake (else deliberate failure)
Case - bug-overpayment - aware - no return - theft
Surgeon - fee - free operation
Obj - dishonest according to ordinary standard of reasonable and honest people
Subj - did D realise reasonable and honest people regard it as dishonest?
R v Lloyd
Films - cinema - copied
Borrowing would amount to outright taking only where the property was returned in such a changed state that all its goodness and virtue were gone. The partial diminution of value represented by the copying of the films would not suffice despite the reduction in revenue caused by the availability of pirate films.
Intention to avoid payment temporarily will not suffice. Has to be PERMANENTLY.
So D who left the hotel owing a large bill which he genuinely hoped to be able to pay at a later date was not liable.
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
A person who firms an intention to kill whilst sober and drinks to give himself Dutch courage to do the act, and who then goes on to kill whilst intoxicated, cannot rely on intoxication to avoid liability.
DPP v Majewski
Te effect of intoxication on D's state of mind was only relevant to crimes of specific intent. In crimes of basic intent, D's recklessness in taking drugs/alcohol that rendered his behaviours uncontrolled and unpredictable was in itself sufficient to substitute for MR of the offence
R v Hardie
Valium - belief to calm D down - arson
Consumption of non-dangerous drugs would amount to involuntary intoxication, unless the consumption itself was reckless.
R v Kingston
D was drugged by another man who also drugged V.
Although D's will was weakened by drugs administered without his knowledge, he was still aware of his situation and knew his actions were wrong. As such, he had MR for the offence charged.
R v Williams (Gladstone)
D tried to stop man attacking another. V was a man detained for robbery. D trying to rely on self-defence.
The reasonableness of D'e actions must be judged on the facts as he believed them to be. If D's perception of event had been correct, SD would have been available and he should not Ben deprived of a defence because he was mistaken. Provide the mistake belief was honestly held, it is immaterial that the mistake was not reasonable
Duty to retreat
Beckford v R
A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike.
R v Hudson and Taylor
Duress + Immediacy
False statements, trial
The issue was not whether the threats could be carried out immediately but whether they were operating on the defendants at the time of the threat. CA recognised that threats were no less powerful because they were not immediately effective.
R v Cole
There must be a link between the threat made and the offence committee.
Threat - repayments - 2 armed robberies
Graham (confirmed in R v Howe)
Test for duress
1. D was overwhelmed by threats of death or serious bodily harm
2. A sober person of reasonable firmness would have been compelled to offend.
Relevant characteristics to the reasonable man test:
Age, sex, pregnancy, serious physical disability, recognised mental illness/psychiatric conditions
R v Sharp
Availability of duress by threats
A person who voluntarily joins a gang, knowing of its nature, as an active member cannot avail himself of duress if pressure is put upon him to offend.
Membership of an organised gang is not essential. It is enough that D put himself in the position where he will encounter criminals with a tendency to violence eg by buying drugs from a dealer.
R v Willer
Duress of circumstances
D should have a defence as he was wholly driven by the force of circumstances into doing what he did and did not drive the car otherwise that form of compulsion, ie under duress.
D's wife threatened to commit suicide unless he drove their son to school. This provided a defence of duress if circumstances to the charge of driving whilst disqualified.