cases for crime Flashcards
(31 cards)
Facts of the case Hogg v. Macpherson 1928 JC 15 (NO VOLUNTARY ACT)
The driver of a horse drawn carriage, is affected when the wind blows and so with it takes the carriage and from this flattens a lamp post. The accused is set a letter explaining that he would need to pay for this lamppost and if he didn’t it would then become a criminal offence. He however continued to refuse to pay and so was taken to court. He won his appeal as it was held that it was not his act that flattened the lamp post.
Facts of the case R v. White [1910] 2 KB 124, CA (result crime) (no casual link)
Mr white tried to poison his Mother by putting poison in her drink, and as she took a sip she died. However, only ¾’s of her drink had been touched and in fact she had actually died of a heart attack. Mr White was not charged with murder as he did not in fact kill her but attempted to.
Facts of the case H.M. Advocate v. Kerr & others (1871) 2 Couper 334 (not liable for your omissions) (general rule for art and part liability)
Number of youths were raping a girl and as well a man watched and seen what the youths were doing however, did not make any attempts to stop their act. He was also charged with rape as although he did not partake in the act, he omitted helping the girl. On his appeal, court held that although the failure to stop the rape was an omission and immoral, it was not his legal duty to stop the rape, thus showing that you can fail to act and you won’t be criminally liable.
Facts of the case Quin v. Lees 1994 SCCR 159 (motive is not the same as mens rea)
Accused was charged with assault by setting dogs on a group of individuals, the accused was prompting the dogs by saying ‘attack’ and later in court urged that it has been a joke, however a joke was then used to describe his motive.
Facts of the case Paton v. H.M. Advocate 1936 JC 19:
Person is reckless if they have displayed criminal indifferences to their actions.
Facts of the case Thabo Meli v. R [1954] 1 WLR 228
Illustrates the coming together of actus reus and mens rea the accused had been convicted of murder having been brutally abused and rolled off a cliff and the accused left with the assumption that he was already dead. However, the victim died two hours after he landed from the cliff. The accused argued that there was not an effect of actus reus as when they intended to kill him they didn’t, but when they didn’t intend to kill him they did.
Facts of the case Roberts v. Hamilton 1989 JC 91; 1989 SLT 399 (transferred intent)
Accused aimed a blow at one person but instead hit someone else, was the accused guilty of actus reus? It was argued that although she did intend to injure someone she did not mean to injure the individual that she did. Court held that if you have the actus reus and intended to hurt someone it can be transferred. Can apply to assault, murder but also doesn’t apply to different crimes.
Facts of the case H.M. Advocate v Robertson and Donoghue (thin skull rule) (causation) (involuntary culpable homicide)
struggled with an elderly shop keeper who had a heart attack during the act, convicted of murder because the act caused the heart attack.
Facts of the case Mcdonald v H.M. Advocate 2007 SCCR 10 (thin skull rule)
Victim had been seriously assaulted and locked into his flat which was on the third floor. Within 30 minutes, the victim climbed out the window of his third floor flat and made it to the second floor but fell to his death when he reached the ground floor. The victim was a drug addict and on that day he had taken a substantial amount of amphetamines (meaning that his actions were unreasonable due to his dosage of drugs). The accused was prosecuted with culpable homicide- had he caused his own death. In this instance, the think skull rule applies and so they had to take their victim as they found him.
Facts of the case H.M. Advocate v. Fraser & Rollins 1920 JC 60 (art and part liability)
A woman (Miss White) agreed with other men that they would rob a stranger. The robbing went too far, and someone was killed. Miss White, became a prosecution witness and got away with her role, but if not she would have been art and part liable for the murder. (Prior agreement)
Facts of the case H.M. Advocate v. Gallacher 1951 JC 38 (art and part liability)
Victim was mistaken for a member of the circus and was attacked. A group then joined in and the victim died. All were charged with murder without a prior plan- all can be prosecuted with art and part liability.
Facts of the case Boyne v. H.M. Advocate 1980 SLT 56 (art and part liability)
Victim was killed by a stab wound. A way that they all could be convicted of murder: if they all knew there was a knife and they knew that it could be assumed that the knife could be used therefore the knife was part of the plan.
Facts of the case
H.M Advocate v. Camerons (1911) 6 Adam 456 (attempted fraud)
Husband and wife pretended to be robbed (insurance fraud). Were arrested by the police before they could fill out an insurance claim. (preparation to penetration)
Facts of the case Docherty v. Brown 1996 JC 48: 1996 SLT 325 (impossible attempts)
Accused charged with possession of drugs with intent to supply. (Statutory offence) They ended up not being drugs. An impossible attempt because they weren’t drugs but could have been guilty because he was still attempting to do the forbidden situation. Could be a relevant charge if it could be proved if that was in fact what he wanted to do
Facts of the case West v. H.M. Advocate 1985 SCCR 248 (conspiracy)
West and another man were arrested for conspiracy to commit an assault and robbery in the bank.
In general, you can be done for conspiracy before the act is carried out, as long as there is an agreement and that that can be proved, that is the completed crime of conspiracy.
Facts of the case Baxter v. H.M. Advocate 1997 SCCR 437 (incitement)
The accused met a fellow employee and told him and discussed how to kill someone etc… and that is as far as the conversation went. The accused was charged with incitement as he invited someone else to join in. Guilty without finalising the details, doesn’t have to be a coming together like contractual terms.
Facts of the case Drury v H.M. Advocate 2001 SCCR 583 (murder) (voluntary culpable homicide) (provocation)
Attacked former girlfriend with a hammer as suspected that she was having an affair- pathologists said that she had seen the worse skull fractures. Altered the position of what the crown had to prove as Lord Rodger said to jury that it had to be done wickedly.
Facts of the case H.M. Advocate v. Purcell 2008 JC 131 (wicked recklessness- murder)
Accused charged with murder, when recklessly driving and killed a boy who was on a pedestrian crossing. Guilty for culpable homicide
Facts of the case
Tomney v H.M. Advocate [2012] HCJAC 138 (involuntary culpable homicide- lawful)
charged with recklessly discharging a gun and killing someone. He lawfully had a license for the gun however reckless because playing about with a gun drunk.
Facts of the case Transco PLC v. H.M. Advocate (No. 1) (corporate liability and corporate homicide)
charge of culpable homicide against a company
Facts of the case John Roy 1839 Bell’s Notes 88 (did not intentionally assault)
intentionally broke a window but did not intentionally injure a girl so did not assault her.
Facts of the case
Smart v. H.M. Advocate 1975 JC 30; 1975 SLT 65
Consent is no defence
Facts of the case R v. Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 (consent is no defence)
police found videos and thought they were snuff movies (real torture movies) – it was a group of gay men who acted in sado-masochism and were consenting.
Facts of the case
Stewart v. Nisbet 2013 SCL 209
some errors can be used as an excuse against liability. Accused was convicted for cello-taping a woman’s head and the accused was a police officer. Stated that the victim and him engaged in banter- and thought that the victim would find the act amusing, and so he probably believed she was consenting – error as to consent.
