Cases

Question 1

18: Rules of Criminal Law -
Conduct criminalised by judges

Shaw v DPP (1962)

Answer 1

Defendant published a Ladies Directory advertising names and addresses of prostitutes and their ‘services’. Charged with conspiracy to corrupt public morals. House of Lords accepted that there was a common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals as there did not appear to be a statutory offence covering the situation.

Question 2

18: Rules of Criminal Law -
Rules governing burden of proof

Woolmington v DPP (1935)

Answer 2

D’s wife had left him and gone to live with her mother. D went to the mother’s house and shot her dead with a sawn-off-shotgun. She refused, he revealed the weapon threatening suicide and the gun somehow went of by accident he claimed. The burden of proof was on the prosecution, who satisfied the jury on proving guilt of D. The burden of proof was then put on the defendant to prove his innocence. House of Lords held it was NOT correct.

Question 3

19: Actus Reus -
Voluntary nature of Actus Reus

R v Mitchell (1983)

Answer 3

D tried to push his way into a queue at the post office. A 72-year-old man told him off for this. D punched this man, causing him to stagger backwards into a 89-year-old woman. The woman was knocked over and injured, and a few days later died of her injuries. D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. The man who had been punched and fallen against the woman was not liable for any criminal act.

Question 4

19: Actus Reus -
Involuntariness

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Answer 4

The defendant had been ordered to leave the United Kingdom. Decided to go to Ireland, later being deported back to the UK. She did not go back voluntarily but upon arrival, was convicted because she was an alien who refused leave to land. It did not matter that she had been brought back by the Irish police against her will.

Question 5

19: Actus Reus -
Statutory Duty

Cases?

Answer 5

Road Traffic Act 1988

• Failure to stop or report a road traffic accident
• Failing to provide a specimen of breath

Children and Young Persons Act 1933
- Parents who are legally responsible for a child are under a duty for providing food, clothing, medical aid and lodging for their children

Question 6

19: Actus Reus -
Contractual Duty

R V Pittwood (1902)

Answer 6

Railway-crossing-keeper omitted to shut the gates, resulting in a person being struck and killed by a train. Keeper found guilty of manslaughter

Question 7

19: Actus Reus -
A duty through relationship, duty undertaken voluntarily

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)

Answer 7

Father of a seven-year-old girl living with his partner and several children from an earlier marriage. Seven-year-old girl kept separate from other children and deliberately starved to death. Both convicted of murder. Father had a duty as a parent to feed her. Mistress undertook a duty of care and so was under a duty to feed the child. Omission to feed her was deliberate with intent of killing – guilty of murder.

Question 8

19: Actus Reus
Duty undertaken voluntarily

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)

Answer 8

Stone’s elderly sister, Fanny came to live with defendant. Fanny was eccentric and failed to eat, eventually becoming bedridden and unable to care for herself. Dobinson, Stone’s partner had occasionally helped to wash Fanny and also occasionally prepared food for her. Fanny died from malnutrition. Both found guilty of manslaughter.
Stone owed her a duty of care as her brother and Dobinson had undertaken some care of Fanny and so owed her a duty of care.

Question 9

19: Actus Reus -
Duty through D setting in motion a chain of events

R v Evans (2009)

Answer 9

Victim aged 16 and a heroin addict, lived with mother and older half-sister. Half-sister (D) bought some heroin and gave it to V who self injected and later overdosed. Neither the mother nor half-sister tried to get medical help, instead they put V to bed and hoped she would recover.
Both mother and D were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. Mother owed a duty of care as a parent, D had created a ‘STATE OF AFFAIRS’ which threatened the life of V, therefore owing a duty of care.

Question 10

19: Actus Reus -
A duty through one’s official position

Rv Dytham (1979)

Answer 10

D was a police officer on duty, he saw a man (V) being thrown out of a nightclub and become involved in a fight in which three men kicked the death. D took no steps to intervene or summon help, instead going off-duty and leaving the scene. convicted of misconduct in a public office - guilty of wilfully and without reasonable excuse neglecting to perform his duty.

Question 11

19: Actus Reus -
Duty through D setting in motion a chain of events

R v Miller (1983)

Answer 11

D living in a squat, fell asleep while smoking and lit his mattress on fire. He did not attempt to put out the fire or to summon help but went into another room and went back to sleep, the house caught fire. He was convicted of arson. He was found guilty as he failed to take reasonable steps to deal with the fire

Question 12

19: Actus Reus -
Duty through D setting in motion a chain of events

DDP v Santa-Bermudez (2003)

Answer 12

Police woman asked D if he had any needles or other sharp objects on him, before searching his pockets. D said ‘no’ but when the police officer put her hand in his pocket she was injured by a needle which caused bleeding. The defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

Question 13

19: Actus Reus -
The duty of doctors

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)

Answer 13

Bland was a young man who had been crushed by the crowd during the Hillsborough disaster. This stopped oxygen getting to his brain and left him in a persistent vegetative state and with severe brain damage. He was fed artificially through tubes and had been in this state for three years. The doctor’s caring for him asked the court for a ruling so they could stop feeding him, the court ruled that the doctors could, even though Bland would die as a result. This was held to be in his best interest.

Question 14

19: Actus Reus -
Problems of deciding when a duty exists

R v Khan and Khan (1998)

Answer 14

The defendant had supplied heroin to a new user who took it in their presence and then collapsed. They left her alone and upon their return she had died. Their conviction for unlawful act manslaughter was quashed but the Court of Appeal thought there could be a duty to summon medical assistance in certain circumstances, so that the defendant could be liable for failing to do so.

Question 15

19: Actus Reus -
Factual cause

R v Pagett (1983)

Answer 15

D took pregnant girlfriend from her home by force, held her hostage then when called to surrender by the police, used her as a human shield whilst shooting at police. Police returned fire and the girl was killed by police bullets. D was convicted of manslaughter and was guilty because the girl would not have died ‘but for’ him using her as a shield during the shoot-out.

Question 16

19: Actus Reus -
Factual cause

R v Hughes (2013)

Answer 16

D was driving a camper van faultlessly and rounded. As he rounded a right-hand bend in the correct side of the road a car swerved into D’s camper van. The driver, under the influence of heroin, was fatally wounded.

D was not insured and was without a full driving license. He was charged under s 3ZB of the Road Traffic Safety Act 1988 with causing death by driving without a license and while uninsured and convicted. Supreme Court quashed the conviction on the grounds that although D was the ‘cause’ of the other driver’s death, this was not enough to have been a legal effective cause but he merest chance that what the other driver hit was D’s vehicle.

There had to be something about the driving had was open to criticism and contributed in some more than minimal way to the death.

Question 17

19: Actus Reus -
cause

R v Kimsey (1996)

Answer 17

D was involved in a high speed chase with a friend. She lost control of her car and the other driver was killed in the crash. Evidence about what happened beforehand was not very clear.
The trial judge directed the jury that D’s driving did not have to be ‘the principal, or substantial cause of the death as long as you are sure that it was a cause that there must be something more than a slight or trifling link’. The Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for causing death by dangerous driving.

Question 18

19: Actus Reus -
The ‘thin skull’ rule

R v Blaue (1975)

Answer 18

A young woman was stabbed by the defendant. She was told she needed a blood transfusion to save her life but she refused as she was a Jehovah’s Witness and it was against her religion. She died and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. Despite the fact that the victims being a Jehovah’s Witness made the wound fatal, the defendant was still guilty as he has to take his victim as he found her.

Question 19

19: Actus Reus -
Medical Treatment

R v Smith (1959)

Answer 19

Two soldiers had a fight and one was stabbed in the lung by the other. V was carried to a medical centre but was dropped on the way. At the medical centre the staff gave him artificial respiration by pushing down on his chest, making the wound worse, resulting in his death. The poor treatment affected his chances of recovery by as much as 75 percent but he original attached was still guilty of his murder.

It was held that that a defendant would be guilty, provided that the injury caused by D was still an ‘operating’ and ‘substantial’ cause of death. The stab would was still ‘operating’ ( it obviously had not healed up) and was the substantial cause of V’s death.

Question 20

19: Actus Reus -
Medical Treatment

R v Cheshire (1991)

Answer 20

D shot the victim in the thigh and stomach. V needed major surgery, developed breathing problems and was given a tracheotomy. Some two months after the shooting, V died from rare complications left by the tracheotomy. By the time V died, the original wounds had virtually healed and were no longer life threatening. D was still held to be liable for V’s death.

Question 21

19: Actus Reus -
Medical Treatment

R v Jordan (1956)

Answer 21

The victim had been stabbed in the stomach and was treated in the hospital, the wounds were healing well. V was given antibiotics and had an allergic reaction, later being given a larger dose and dying. In this case, the actions of the doctor were an intervening act which caused the death. The defendant was not guilty of murder.

Question 22

19: Actus Reus -
Life support machines

R v Malcherek (1981)

Answer 22

D stabbed his wife in the stomach and in hospital, she was put on a life support machine. After a number of tests showed she was brain-dead, the machine was switched off. D was charged with her murder. The trial judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to the jury. D was convicted and the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction.

Question 23

19: Actus Reus -
Victim’s own acts

R v Roberts (1972)

Answer 23

A girl jumped from a car in order to escape from Robert’s sexual advances. The car was travelling at between 20 and 40mph and the girl was injured by jumping from it. The defendant was held to be liable for her injuries. The COA upheld the conviction under s47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 as the reaction of V was reasonably foreseeable as the consequence of what D was saying and doing.

Question 24

19: Actus Reus -
Victim’s own actions

R v Marjoram (2000)

Answer 24

Several people, including D, shouted abuse and kicked the door of V’s hostel room. They eventually force the door open. V then fell (or possibly jumped) from the window of the room and suffered serious injuries. D’s conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

In this situation it was reasonably foreseeable that V would fear that the group was going to use violence against him, and the only escape route for him was the window..

Question 25

19: Actus Reus -
Unreasonable reaction

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

Answer 25

A hitch-hiker jumped from Williams car and died from head injuries caused by his head hitting the road. The car was travelling at about 30 mph. The prosecution alleged that there may have been an attempt to steal the victims wallet and that was the reason for his jumping from the car. The Court of Appeal said that the victims act had to be reasonably foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to the threat which is was not in this case.

Question 26

19: Actus Reus -
V refusing treatment

R v Holland (1841)

Answer 26

D deliberately cut V’s finger. The cut became infected and V was advised that he should have the finger amputated. He refused to have the amputation until it was too late, and he died from the infection. D was liable for his death. In 1841 surgery was very primitive and this decision can be justified.

Question 27

19: Actus Reus -
V refusing treatment

R v Dear (1996)

Answer 27

D slashed V several times with a Stanley knife, severing an artery. V did not bother to have the wounds attended to and possibly, even opened the wounds further, making the bleeding worse. V died from blood loss. D’s conviction for murder was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The court held that, provided the wounds were an operating and significant cause, the jury was entitled to convicted D. Even if V had affectively decided to commit suicide by allowing the wounds to continue to bleed, the wounds were still the cause of death.

Question 28

19: Actus Reus -
Life support machines

R v Malcherek (1981)

Answer 28

D stabbed his wife in the stomach and in hospital, she was put on a life support machine. After a number of tests showed she was brain-dead, the machine was switched off. D was charged with her murder. The trial judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to the jury. D was convicted and the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction.

Question 29

19: Actus Reus -
Victim’s own acts

R v Roberts (1972)

Answer 29

A girl jumped from a car in order to escape from Robert’s sexual advances. The car was travelling at between 20 and 40mph and the girl was injured by jumping from it. The defendant was held to be liable for her injuries. The COA upheld the conviction under s47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 as the reaction of V was reasonably foreseeable as the consequence of what D was saying and doing.

Question 30

19: Actus Reus -
Victim’s own actions

R v Marjoram (2000)

Answer 30

Several people, including D, shouted abuse and kicked the door of V’s hostel room. They eventually force the door open. V then fell (or possibly jumped) from the window of the room and suffered serious injuries. D’s conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

In this situation it was reasonably foreseeable that V would fear that the group was going to use violence against him, and the only escape route for him was the window..

Question 31

19: Actus Reus -
Unreasonable reaction

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

Answer 31

A hitch-hiker jumped from Williams car and died from head injuries caused by his head hitting the road. The car was travelling at about 30 mph. The prosecution alleged that there may have been an attempt to steal the victims wallet and that was the reason for his jumping from the car. The Court of Appeal said that the victims act had to be reasonably foreseeable and also had to be in proportion to the threat which is was not in this case.

Question 32

19: Actus Reus -
V refusing treatment

R v Holland (1841)

Answer 32

D deliberately cut V’s finger. The cut became infected and V was advised that he should have the finger amputated. He refused to have the amputation until it was too late, and he died from the infection. D was liable for his death. In 1841 surgery was very primitive and this decision can be justified.

Question 33

19: Actus Reus -
V refusing treatment

R v Dear (1996)

Answer 33

D slashed V several times with a Stanley knife, severing an artery. V did not bother to have the wounds attended to and possibly, even opened the wounds further, making the bleeding worse. V died from blood loss. D’s conviction for murder was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The court held that, provided the wounds were an operating and significant cause, the jury was entitled to convicted D. Even if V had affectively decided to commit suicide by allowing the wounds to continue to bleed, the wounds were still the cause of death.

Question 34

20 Mens rea
Foresight of consequences

Moloney (1985)

Answer 34

D and his step-father has drunk a considerable amount of alcohol at a family party. After the party they had been seeing who was loading and and firing a shotgun.
Step-father said he didn’t have ‘the guts’ to pull the trigger. D pulled the trigger and the step-father was dead. D was convicted of murder but quashed on appeal. House of Lords ruled that foresight of consequences is only evidence of intention but not intention in itself.

Question 35

20 Mens rea
Foresight of consequences

Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Answer 35

Ds were miners on strike, attempted to prevent another miner going to work by pushing a concrete block from a bridge on to the road where the taxi was driving. The block killed the taxi driver. The trial judge used the Moloney guidelines to direct the jury, and Ds were convicted of murder. On Appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed their convictions. This was upheld by the House of Lords.

Question 36

20 Mens rea
Foresight of consequence

Nedrick (1986)

Answer 36

D had a grudge against a woman and poured paraffin through the letter box of her home. A child died in the fire. D was convicted of murder but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and substituted one of manslaughter.

It was necessary for the consequences to be a virtual certainty and for D to have realised that. If this was so then there was evidence from which the jury could infer that D had the necessary intention.

Question 37

20 Mens rea
Foresight of consequence

Woollin (1998)

Answer 37

D there his three-month-old baby towards his prom which was against a wall from three or four feet away. The baby suffered head injuries and died. The court ruled that the consequence must have been a virtual certainty and the defendant must have realised this. If the jury were satisfied on both points, then there was evidence from which the jury could find intention. Model direction from Nedrick changed from ‘infer’ to ‘find’.

Question 38

20 Mens rea
Foresight of consequence

Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Answer 38

Ds dropped the victim 25 feet for a bridge. The victim had told them that he could not swim. They watched him paddle towards the bank but left shortly afterwards. The victim drowned.
Trial judge directed jury that D’s intention to kill could be proved either by direct intention to kill or by the defendant’s appreciation that V’s death was a virtual certainty. Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge was wrong to say that appreciation of a virtual certainty constituted intention but upheld the conviction.

Question 39

20 Mens rea
Subjective recklessness

Cunningham (1957)

Answer 39

D tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal the money in it. Had leaked into neighbouring house and the woman living there was affected by it. Cunningham was charged with an offence under s23 of he Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, of maliciously administering noxious gas. He was found not guilty as he did not realise the risk of gas escaping into the next-door house. He had not intended to cause harm, nor had taken a risk he knew about.

Question 40

20 Mens rea
Subjective recklessness

Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell (1981)

Answer 40

D had a grievance against the owner of a hotel and set fire to it. The fire was extinguished quickly and D was charged with arson under s 1(2) I’d the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This requires that D intended endangerment to life or was reckless as to whether life was endangered. D claimed that he was so drunk that he had not realised that people’s lives might be endangered. His conviction was upheld.

Question 41

20 Mens rea
Subjective recklessness

G and Another (2003)

Answer 41

The defendants were two boys, aged 11 and 12 years, who set fire to some bundles of newspapers in a shop yard. They threw them under a large wheelie bin and left. they thought that the fire would go out by itself. In fact, the bin caught fire and this spread to the shop and other buildings, causing £1 million worth of damage. The judge directed the jury that they had to decide whether ordinary adults would have realised the risk. The boys were convicted under both ss 1 and 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. On Appeal the House of Lords quashed their conviction.

HoL held that a defendant could not be guilty unless he had realised the risk and took it anyway.

Question 42

20 Mens re
Transferred Malice

Latimer (1886)

Answer 42

D aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub because that man had attacked him. The belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. D was guilty of an assault against the woman, although he had not meant to hit her.

Question 43

20 Mens rea
Transferred Malice

Gnango (2011)

Answer 43

Gnango and another man, known as ‘Bandana Man’, shot at each other. Bandana Man hit an innocent passerby and killed her. Gnango Was tried and convicted of her murder. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction but it was reinstated by the Supreme Court. They held he was guilty of the murder of the passerby as, by agreeing to the shootout with Bandana Man, he was attempting to murder Bandana Man and also aiding and abetting Bandana Man’s attempt to murder him. Bandana Man would have been guilty of the murder of the passerby under the doctrine of transferred malice. This meant that Gnango, because of his participation in this attempted murder of himself, was also guilty of the murder of the passerby under the principle of transferred malice.

Question 44

20 Mens rea
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

Thabo Meli v R (1954)

Answer 44

Ds attacked a man and believed they had killed him. They then pushed his body off a low cliff. In fact, the man had survived the attack but died of exposure went unconscious at the foot of the cliff. It was held that Ds were guilty of murder.

Question 45

20 Mens rea
Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea

Church (1965)

Answer 45

D had a fight with a woman and knocked her out. He tried, unsuccessfully, for about half an hour to bring her around. He thought she was dead and he put her in the river. She drowned. His conviction for manslaughter was upheld.

Question 46

20 Mens rea
Continuing act

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)

Answer 46

Fagan was told by a police officer to park by a curb. In doing this Fagan drove on to the policeman‘s foot, without realising he had done so.Initially, Fagan refuse to move the car. When the policeman pointed out what had happened, he asked Fagan several times to move the car out of his foot. Eventually, Fagan did move the car. Fagan was convicted of assaulting the police officer in the execution of his duty.

The Courts of Appeal held that once Fagan knew the car was on the policeman‘s foot he had the required mens rea. As the actus reus (the car putting force on the foot) was still continuing, the two elements were then present together. The actus reus in this case was a continuing act as, so long as the defendant developed the mens rea at sometime while the act was continuing, then he could be guilty.

Question 47

21 No fault and strict liability
The concept of strict liability

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986)

Answer 47

D was charged under s 58(2) of the Medicines Acct 1968 states that no one shall supply certain drugs without a doctors prescription. D had supply drugs on prescription, but the prescriptions were later found to be forged. There was no finding that D had acted dishonestly, in properly or even negligently. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists. Despite this, the House of Lords held that divisional court was right to direct the magistrates to convicted. The pharmacist had supplied drugs without a genuine prescription and this was enough to make them guilty of the offence

Question 48

21 No fault and strict liability
Absolute liability

R v Larsonneur (1933)

Answer 48

The defendant, who was from a foreign country (and was therefore termed an alien, in the language of the time), had been ordered to leave the United Kingdom. She decided to go to Eire, but the Irish police supported her and took her in custody back to the UK, where she was put in the cell in Holyhead police station. She did not want to return to the UK. She had no mens rea. Her act in returning was not voluntarily. She was taken back to the UK. Despite this, she was found guilty under the Aliens Order 1920 of being ‘an alien to whom leave to land in the United Kingdom has been refused … found in the United Kingdom’.

Question 49

21 No fault and strict liability
Absolute liability

Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983)

Answer 49

D was taken to hospital on a stretcher, but when he was examined by doctors they found that he was not ill but he was drunk. D was told to leave the hospital, but was later found slumped on a seat in a corridor. The police were called and they took D to the roadway outside the hospital. They formed the opinion that he was drunk so they put him in the police car, drove him to the police station and charged him with being found drunk in the highway, contrary to s 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. The Divisional Court upheld his conviction.

Question 50

21 No fault and strict liability
Strict liability

R v Prince (1875)

Answer 50

Prince knew that the girl he ‘took’ was in the possession of her father but believed, on reasonable grounds, that she was aged 18. He was convicted as he had the intention to remove the girl from the possession of her father. Mens rea was required for this part of the actus reus and he had the necessary intention. However, the court held that knowledge of her age was not required. On this aspect of the offence there was strict liability

Question 51

21 No fault and strict liability
Strict liability

R v Hibbert (1869)

Answer 51

The defendant met a girl aged 14 on the street. He took her to another place where they had sexual intercourse. He was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in the custody of her father. Even though the age aspect of the offence was one of the strict liability, mens rea was required for the removal aspects and, in this case, the necessary intention was not proved.

Question 52

21 No fault and strict liability
No fault

Callow v Tillshaw (1900)

Answer 52

A butcher asked a vet to examine the carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. The vet assured him that it was alright to eat and so the butcher offered it for sale. In fact, it was unfit and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale.

Because it was a strict liability offence the butcher was guilty, even though he had taken reasonable care not to commit the offence. The butcher was not at fault in any way

Question 53

21 No fault and strict liability
No ‘due diligence’ defence

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)

Answer 53

The defendants owned a newsagents business where the lottery tickets were sold. They had told the staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years old. They frequently reminded their staff that if there was any doubt about the customers age, the staff would ask for proof of age, and is still in doubt should refer the matter to the defendants. One of the staff solely on the lottery ticket to a 13-year-old boy, without asking for proof of age. Salesman mistakenly believed the boy was over 16 years old. D1 was in a back room of the premises at the time: D2 was not on the premises. The defendants were charged with selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16, contrary to s 13(1)(c) of the National Lottery Act 1993. The magistrates dismissed the charges, but the prosecution appealed to the Divisional Court which held that the offence was one of strict liability. This meant that the defendants were guilty.

Question 54

21 No fault and strict liability
No defence of mistake

Cundy v Le Cocq (1884)

Answer 54

D was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. The magistrate found that as a fact that the defendant and the employees had not noticed that the person was drunk. The magistrate also found that whole the person was on the licensed premises he had been ‘quiet in his demeanour and had done nothing to indicate insobriety’. However, the magistrate held that the offence was one of strict liability and the defendant had done the Actus Reus and therefore he was guilty and was convicted. The defendant appealed but the Divisional Court upheld the conviction.

Question 55

21 No fault and strict liability
No defence of mistake

Sherras v De Rutzen (1895)

Answer 55

D was convicted of supplying alcohol to a constable on duty. Local police, when on duty, wore an armband on their uniform. An on-duty police officer removed his armband before entering the public house and was served by D’s daughter in the presence of D. D thought that the constable was off duty as he was not wearing his armband. D was convicted but the Divisional Court quashed the conviction.
It held that the offence was not one of strict liability and accordingly a genuine mistake provided the defendant with a defence..

Question 56

21 No fault and strict liability
Strict liability at common law

Gibson and Sylveire (1991)

Answer 56

Gibson had created an art exhibit of a model head earring earrings made of real human foetuses. He was red to highlight how casually abortions were thought of. The model was put on display in Sylveire’s art gallery. Both men were convicted of outraging public decency. It was a strict liability offence as it did not have to be proved either that D intended to outrage public decency, or that D was reckless as to whether his coins it would have the effect of outraging public decency.

Question 57

21 No fault and strict liability
Presumption of Mens Rea

Sweet v Parsley (1969)

Answer 57

D rented a farmhouse and let it out to students. Cannabis was found at the farmhouse by the police and D was charged with ‘being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin’. D did not know that cannabis was being smoked there. It was decided that she was not guilty as the court presumed that the offence required mens rea.

Question 58

21 No fault and strict liability
Penalty if imprisonment

B v DPP (2000)

Answer 58

D, a 15-year-old boy, asked a 13-year-old girl to have oral sex with him, believing she was 14. He was charged with inciting a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of gross indecency under s1(1) of the indecency with Children Act 1960. The House of Lords quashed the conviction as mens rea was required for the offence.

Question 59

21 No fault and strict liability
Issues of social concern

R v Blake (1997)

Answer 59

D was a disc jockey who was convicted of using a station for wireless telegraphy without a license under s 1(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. His defence was that he was making a demonstration tape and didn’t know he was transmitting. He was convicted as the offence was one of strict liability. He appealed but the CoA dismissed it.

Question 60

21 No fault and strict liability
Guilty even though unaware of risk

Environment Agency v Brock plc (1998)

Answer 60

A leakage caused by a hidden defect in a seal caused pollution. It was pointed out that defects in valves are a rare but ordinary fact in life. The company was liable for the leak.

Question 61

21 No fault and strict liability
Contrary to human rights

R v G (2008)

Answer 61

G was a 15-year-old boy who had consensual sex with a girl who claimed to be 15 but was actually 12. G was prosecuted under s 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for the offence of rape of a child under 13. He was advised that this was a strict liability offence and his belief that she was 15 was irrelevant. He, therefore, pleaded guilty. The case was referred to the HoL on two points. One being that the offence was one of strict liability violated Article 6(1) (entitlement of a fair hearing) and/or 6(2) (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Question 62

22 Non-fatal Offences Against the Persons
An ‘act’

R v Constanza (1997)
&
R v Ireland (1997)

Answer 62

R v Constanza (1997)
CoA held that letters could be an assault. D had written 800 letters and made a number of phone calls to V, the last two letters being interpreted as clear threats by V. CoA said that there was an assault as there was a ‘fear of violence at some time, not excluding the immediate future’.

R v Ireland (1997
It was held that silent phone calls can be an assault depending on the facts of the case.

Question 63

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
‘Apprehend immediate unlawful force’

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983)

Answer 63

D broke into a harder and looked through V’s bedroom window on the ground floor at 11pm one evening.
V was terrified and thought that D was about to enter the room. Although D was outside the house and no attack had been made at that immediate moment, the court held that V was frightened by his conduct. The basis of the fear was that she did not know what he was going to do next, but that it was likely to be of a violent nature. Fear of what he might do next was sufficiently immediate for the purpose of the offence.

Question 64

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
‘Apprehend immediate unlawful force’

Tuberville v Savage (1669)
&
R v Light (1857)

Answer 64

Tuberville v Savage (1669
Defendant placed one hand on sword and said ‘if it were not assize time I would not take silica language from you’. Not an assault as he showed that no violence would be done.

R v Light (1857)
Defendant raised sword above the head of his wife and said ‘Were it not for the bloody policeman outside, I would split your head open’. This was held as an assault as the wife feared the application of immediate unlawful force against her and the words were not enough to negate that fear.

Question 65

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Actus reus of battery

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Answer 65

Two police officers saw two women apparently soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The asked them to get into the police car for questioning but the woman refused and walked away. One of the officers followed her trying to find out her identity to which she ignored the officer and walked away, being taken hold of by the officer in an attempt to prevent her leaving. She scratched the officers arm and was convicted of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. She appealed the conviction of the basis that the officer was not acting in the execution of his duty, but was acting unlawfully by holding her arm as he had not arrested her. The court held that the officer had committed a battery and D was entitled to free herself.

Question 66

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Actus Reus of battery

Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008)

Answer 66

The police had received a report that a man named Fraser had thrown an ashtray at another person in a public house. The ashtray had missed the person but had been smashed. Three police officers went to the scene. They saw a man, who fitted the description of Fraser, leave the public house. One of the police offices took hold of W by the arm and asked if he was Fraser. W denied this and struggled, trying to pull away. At that point another officer took hold of W’s other arm. W was charged with assaulting two of the Police officers while they were acting in the execution of their duty.

The police officer who had first court hold of W‘s mum said that he had done this in order to detain W, but was not at that point arresting him. It was held that as the officer had not arrested W, then there was a technical assault (battery) by the police officers. This meant that W was in titled to struggle and was not guilty of any offence of assault against the police.

Question 67

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Mens rea of assault and battery

DPP v Majewski (1976)

Answer 67

D had consumed large quantities of alcohol and drugs and then attacked the landlord of the public house where he was drinking.The landlord called the police and Dean also attacked the police offices who tried to arrest him. The law lords held that becoming intoxicated by drink and drugs was a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea and assault cases.

Question 68

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Actus Reus of s 47

T v DPP (2003)

Answer 68

D and a group of other youths chased V. V fell to the ground and saw D coming towards him. V covered his head with his arms and was kicked. He momentarily lost consciousness and remembered nothing until being woken by a police officer. D was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Question 69

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Actus Reus of s 47

DPP v Smith (Michael) (2006)

Answer 69

The defendant had had an argument with his girlfriend. He cut off her ponytail and some hair from the top of the head without her consent. He was charged with an offence under s 47 of the Offences Against the Person act 1861. The magistrates found that there was no case to answer as they thought that cutting hair could not amount to actual bodily harm. The prosecution appealed and the divisional court held that cutting off a substantial amount of hair could be actual bodily harm.

Question 70

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Mens rea for s 47

R v Roberts (1971)

Answer 70

D, who was driving a car, made advances to the girl in the passenger seat and tried to take her coat off. She felt that he was going to commit a more serious assault and jump from the car while it was travelling at about 30 mph. As a result of this she was slightly injured, D was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm even though that he had not intended any injury or realised that there was a risk of injury. He had intended to apply unlawful force when he touched her as he tried to take her coat off. This satisfied the mens rea for a common assault and so he was guilty of an offence under s 47.

Question 71

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Mens rea of s 47

R v Savage (1991)

Answer 71

D through beer over another woman in a pub. In doing this the glass lift from D’s hand and V’s hand was cut by the glass. D said that she had only intended to throw beer over the woman. D had not intended her to be injured, nor had she realised that there was a risk of injury. She was convicted of a s 20 offence but the Court of Appeal quashed that and substituted a conviction under s 47. She appealed this but the law lords dismissed her appeal.

The fact that she had intended to apply unlawful force was sufficient for the mens rea of the s 47 offence.

Question 72

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Grievous bodily harm

R v Bollom (2004)

Answer 72

A 17 month old child had bruising to her abdomen, both arms and left leg. He was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. The Court of Appeal quashed this conviction and substituted a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. However, the Court of Appeal stated that bruising could amount to grievous bodily harm.

Question 73

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Grievous bodily harm

R v Dica (2004)

Answer 73

The defendant had had unprotected sex with two women without telling them he was HIV-positive. Both women became infected as a result. Although on appeal the defendant‘s conviction was quashed on the question of consent and the case sent for re-trial, there was no doubt that infecting someone with HIV was inflicting grievous bodily harm. At his re-trial the defendant was convicted.

Question 74

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Inflicting grievous bodily harm

R v Burstow (1997)

Answer 74

D carried out an eight month campaign of harassment against a woman with whom he had a brief relationship some three years earlier. The harassment consisted of both silent and abusive telephone calls, hate mail and stalking. This caused V to suffer from severe depression. D’s conviction under s 47 OAPA 1861 Was upheld by the House of Lords.

Question 75

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Mens rea of s 20

R v Parmenter (1991)

Answer 75

D injured his three month old baby when he threw the child in the air and caught him. D said that he had often done this with slightly older children and did not realise that there was a risk of any injury. He was convicted of an offence under s 20. The House of Lords quashed this conviction as there was no evidence that he foresaw any injury, but substituted a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s 47.

Question 76

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Mens rea of s 18

R v Taylor (2009)

Answer 76

V was found with scratches across his face and a stab wound in his back. Photographs of the Scratches showed no more than surface scratches and it was impossible to tell the depth of the wound. The medical evidence did not help in showing whether D had intended to cause really serious injury. The judge directed that the jury must be sure that the prosecution had proved that he had intended to cause grievous bodily harm or to wound. D was convicted of a s 18 offence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the basis that the judge had misdirected the jury. And intention to wound was not sufficient for the mens rea of s 18. Instead The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction for s 20.

Question 77

22 Non-fatal offences against the person
Mens rea of s 18

R v Morrison (1989)

Answer 77

A police officer seized hold of D and told him that she was arresting him. He dived through a window dragging her with him as far as the window so that her face was badly cut by the glass. The Court of Appeal held that as the word ‘maliciously’ is used in respect of this part of the section it must have the same meaning as in Cunningham (1957. This means that the prosecution must prove that the defendant over intended injury or realise that there was a risk of injury and took that risk.