Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law and Evidence > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

MacAngus and Kane v HMA

A

If A supplied B with drugs B’s actions will not necessarily break the causal chain

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

James Williamson

A

Poor medical treatment generally will not be enough to break the causal chain unless it can be shown B would have survived with better treatment

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

Drury v HMA

A

‘Wicked’ intent = mens rea for murder

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

Gillon v HMA

A

Homicide: any intent to kill is wicked unless a recognised defence is available

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

HMA v Purcell

A

Homicide; wicked recklessness; intent to injury is specifically required

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

Petto v HMA

A

Homicide; wicked recklessness; intent to injure; under certain circumstances doing something extremely reckless can amount to intent to injure

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

Lourie v HMA

A

Culpable homicide; unlawful act; causal link as crucial between A’s action and B’s death

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

Paton v HMA

A

Culpable homicide: recklessness - necessary to show gross, or wicked, or criminal negligence

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

Transco v HMA

A

Culpable homicide: lawful act; mens rea; establish necessary degree of recklessness - a complete indifference to the consequences

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

Smart v HMA

A

Assault: AR; every attack upon the person of another whether or not it injures; MR - evil intention

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

Lord Advocate’s Reference No 2

A

Assault; Mens rea; evil intention should really just be interpreted as meaning intention

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

Macdonald v HMA

A

Assault; intention to cause pain might be distinguished from intention to injure

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

R v Brown

A

Assault; if someone desired injury consent probably still remains invalid

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

HMA v Harris

A

AR: causing injury to another. Despite fact that as bouncer he could have a defence of reasonable restraint

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

W v HMA

A

Reckless injury; mens rea = recklessness - an utter disregard for the consequences of ones actions

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

Normand v Robinson

A

Reckless endangerment; AR - endangerment MR - recklessness

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

Donaldson v Normand

A

Reckless endangerment; crime as being used to charge individuals who have denied having sharp objects in their possession before a police search, putting searcher in danger

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

Mallin v Clark

A

Reckless endangerment; lack of disclosure of carrying a weapon is a crime

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

Cameron v Maguire

A

Reckless discharge of firearms; MR utter disregard for the consequences

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

Khaliq v HMA

A

Supplying a harmful substance to a person knowing they intend to use it may be a criminal offence

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

Mutebi v HMA

A

Consent absent where complainer incapable because of alcohol BUT here didn’t fall within scope as she wasn’t sure

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

DC v DG & DR

A

Contrast to Mutebi - unable to consent due to alcohol and backed up with eyewitnesses saying she was extremely drunk

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

Drummond v HMA

A

No consent where B agrees to conduct because unlawfully detained by A

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

Webster v Dominick

A

Offence of Public Indecency - different kinds of exposure/sexual conduct can fall within the scope

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Black v Carmichael

A

Theft - requires appropriation (control and possession taken) which is inconsistent with the rights of the owner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Grant v Allan

A

Theft - only corporeal moveable property can be stolen - once information is in the public domain it can’t be stolen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Dewar v HMA

A

Theft - where something given for a specific purpose, theft if used outwith the realm of this consent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Kane v Friel

A

Theft; MR - intention to deprive (even if intending to give it back)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

HMA v Forbes

A

Housebreaking with intent to steal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Burns v Allan

A

Housebreaking; don’t actually need to break anything and place doesn’t necessarily have to be locked

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

HMA v Laing

A

Embezzlement; AR - taking property you’ve been entrusted with

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

McCraw v PF Aberdeen

A

Embezzlement; MR - dishonesty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Cromar v HMA

A

Robbery; AR theft MR violence (need only be slight)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Black v Carmichael

A

Extortion - threat to another person - cannot take the law into your own hands

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Adcock v Archibald

A

Fraud 3 elements: false pretence/definite practical result/causal link. Here miner caused owners do do something they wouldn’t otherwise have done

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Mackenzie v Skeen

A

Fraud; MR - intent to get a person to do something different than they otherwise would have done

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Latta v Heron

A

Reset; knowingly receiving stolen property MR knowledge or wilful blindness. Here antique guns in dark alleyway

38
Q

HMA v Wilson

A

Malicious Mischief; interfering with property in a way that causes economic loss

39
Q

Lord Advocate’s Ref No 1

A

Malicious Mischief; mens rea - intent or reckless; no malice is required

40
Q

Byrne v HMA

A

Fire-raising; AR fire MR = wilfulness or recklessness. here recklessness as letting fire spread

41
Q

Smith v Donnelly

A

Breach of the Peace - conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community

42
Q

Montgomerie v PF Kilmarnock

A

Breach of the Peace; actual harm is not required - existence of alarm does not mean that an offence has been committed. OBJECTIVE TEST

43
Q

Paterson v Harvie

A

Stalking/threatening/abusive behaviour; objective test that behaviour must be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear/alarm

44
Q

Ralston v HMA

A

Corroboration; 1 positive ID backed up with another statement that the accused resembled the perpetrator was enough.

45
Q

Laing v HMA

A

Corroboration; ID can be circumstantial; eyewitness corroboration was poor; DNA evidence

46
Q

Manuel v HMA

A

Special Knowledge Confessions; certain types of confessions demonstrating ‘special knowledge’ may be corroborated by this being true

47
Q

Smith v Lees

A

Distress as corroboration; can only corroborate a lack of consent though not acts

48
Q

Moorov v HMA

A

Two or more charges can mutually corroborate eachother if closely connected

49
Q

MR v HMA

A

Moorov Doctrine; requirements laid out here for Moorov doctrine - similarities in TIME PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCE

50
Q

Howden v HMA

A

Howden Doctrine; establish a course of conduct; when there is no evidence identifying the accused as having committed 1 crime - if that crime is sufficiently similar to another which he’s been proved of committing - may be convicted of both

51
Q

HMA v Turnbull

A

Search warrants; the search must be within the scope of the warrant (Files)

52
Q

HMA v Hepper

A

Search warrant; accidentally stumbling across incriminating evidence is permitted. Allowed as police acted in good faith

53
Q

Drummond v HMA

A

Search warrant; deliberate fishing expeditions are not permitted.

54
Q

McGuigan v HMA

A

Urgent Searches; may be invoked where reason to believe delay might cause danger to life/property or evidence that it might be destroyed if search not executed properly

55
Q

Lawrie v Muir

A

Evidence unlawfully obtained; balancing test between interest of the citizen and interest of the state (Seriousness of the crime/irregularity/good faith/circumstances of urgency)

56
Q

Brown v HMA

A

Improperly obtained confessions; a confession will be inadmissible where unfairly obtained

57
Q

Cadder v HMA

A

Improperly obtained confessions; access to legal advice; if a suspect has not been offered access then any confession will be INADMISSIBLE

58
Q

Lord Advocate’s Ref No 1

A

Confessions - improper forms of pressure designed to break the will of the suspect/force a confession will not be admissible

59
Q

Harley v HMA

A

Confessions; inducement; where an inappropriate threat has been made evidence will be inadmissible

60
Q

Steward v Hingston

A

Confessions; inducement; admissible where acting in good faith - stating a fact with no pressure

61
Q

HMA v Higgins

A

Confessions; deliberate eavesdropping; statements heard by police in custody = admissible unless manufactured

62
Q

Fraser v HMA

A

Character evidence; similar fact evidence; generally will not be admissible

63
Q

M v HMA

A

Sexual history evidence; events must be linked in time/place/circumstance

64
Q

HMA v CJW

A

Character Evidence; probative value vs risk of prejudice

65
Q

Fraser v HMA

A

Opinion Evidence; generally a witness must testify to a fact NOT their opinion

66
Q

Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP

A

Opinion Evidence; Expert Evidence test

(1) whether evidence will assist court
(2) whether expert witness has necessary knowledge and experience
(3) whether witness is impartial
(4) whether there is a reliable body of knowledge/experience to undpering the expert’s evidence

67
Q

Hendry v HMA

A

Opinion Evidence; Expert; the expert must not usurp the function of the court. Expert cannot express their own opinion on the verdict

68
Q

Hainley v HMA

A

Opinion evidence - whether expert witness has necessary knowledge and experience

69
Q

Young v HMA

A

Opinion Evidence; whether there is a reliable body of knowledge/experience to underpin the expert’s evidence

70
Q

Morrison v HMA

A

Heresay evidence; any assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible

71
Q

HMA v Doherty

A

Self Defence; 3 requirements; immediate danger - no reasonable opportunity to escape - force used must be proportionate

72
Q

Drury v HMA (defence)

A

Provocation; 3 requirements; recognised provocation (violence/infidelity); immediate loss of self-control; ordinary person/proportionality

73
Q

Moss v Howdle

A

Necessity; 3 conditions; immediate danger of death/harm - no reasonable alternative course of action - reasonable prospect of removing the danger (Lord Advocate’s Ref No 1)

74
Q

Thomson v HMA

A

Coercion; immediate threat of death/great bodily harm - ordinary person - accused must not have risked being subject to coercion

75
Q

Ross v HMA

A

Automatism; 3 requirements; total alienation of reason - caused by an external factor - which the accused was not bound to forsee - involuntary intoxication as a defence

76
Q

Brennan v HMA

A

Diminished responsibility; partial defence which would not be satisfied by voluntary intoxication

77
Q

William Hardie

A

Actus reus; crime by omission;

78
Q

Lord Advocate’s Ref No 2

A

Mens rea as intent/wicked intent

79
Q

Cameron v McGuire

A

Recklessness = utter disregard for the consequences of an action

80
Q

Mullan v Anderson

A

Civil cases are always determined on the balance of probabilities even if a crime is alleged

81
Q

Fox v HMA

A

Evidence need not be directly incriminatory to be corroborative - can support stronger evidence

82
Q

HMA v Kerr

A

Omissions - no general duty to intervene when crime is being committed

83
Q

Patterson v Lees

A

Omissions - can’t be liable for an offence on the basis of an omission alone

84
Q

Bone v HMA

A

Crime liability for omission where duty to act - discharged the duty

85
Q

R v Instan

A

Crime liability for omission - where duty to act voluntarily assumed

86
Q

McCue v Currie

A

Crime of omission following a prior dangerous act; where creation of dangerous situation gave rise to a duty to act

87
Q

HMA v Lappen

A

Art and Part Liability; participation and common purpose which will be inferred from the facts

88
Q

McKinnon v HMA

A

Art and Part Liability; guilty if actively associated with common criminal purpose; objective test - show aware of the risk

89
Q

MacNeil v HMA

A

Art and Part Liability - defence of disassociation - a person who quits an enterprise cannot be held to act in concert with those who go on to commit the crime

90
Q

Bird v HMA

A

Causation - thin skull rule - take your victim as you find them

91
Q

R v Blaue

A

Causation - novus actus interveniens - psychological character decisions don’t always break the chain of causation

92
Q

Khaliq v HMA

A

Voluntary acts by the victim don’t break the chain of causation unless unforseeable/unexpected

Criminal Law and Evidence (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions