Cases im unsure of Flashcards
MacDonald v. H.M. Advocate
CAUSATION
Victims contribution.
Victim was seriously assaulted by accused who then locked him in flat so he couldn’t escape. Victim was a known drug addict - tried to escape and fell to his death.
Boyne v. H.M. Advocate
ART AND PART LIABILITY
STEPPING OUTSIDE THE COMMON PLAN
Several individuals were involved in a robbery. One victim died for a stab wound, had the others know that said individual possessed the knife they would all have been held liable.
Held. Evidence demonstrated a lack of knowledge and therefore only the assailant with the knife was liable for murder as they had strayed outside a common plan.
Docherty v. Brown
ATTEMPTS
IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPTS
Accused charged with the attempt to possess a controlled drug with they intent to supply. He had tablets which he believed were ecstasy, however they were intact fake.
Held. Charged with attempt to do something impossible. Attempt to possess ecstasy.
** Petto v. H.M. Advocate
MURDER
IMPORTANT CASE RE MURDER
Accused set fire to 1st floor flat. Initially pleaded guilty and then withdrew plea as he state that he did not intent to injure anyone. However, he knew that people lived on the floor above and that the petrol used would cause a significant fire.
Held. Awareness to people living upstairs and the possibility of injury. Can therefore be thought of as intention to injure someone. Convicted.
** Tomney v H.M. Advocate
LAWFUL ACT, INVOLUNTARY CULPABLE HOMICIDE
Several individuals were mucking about with a gun to which one of the parties possessed a licence. While acting recklessly one party fired the gun, killing another.
Held. The accused was convicted of lawful, involuntary culpable homicide
H.M. Advocate v. Harris
RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT/RECKLESSLY CAUSING INJURY
ASSAULT REQUIRES INTENT, BUT CAUSING REAL INJURY BY RECKLESS CONDUCT IS A CRIME
A bouncer at a nightclub manhandled the victim in removing him from a club. In doing so he did injure the victim.
held. Majority of judges assumed he was entitled to manhandle those he was ejecting while making a citizens arrest, however Lord McCluskey stated that there must be JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.
Adcock v. Archibald
FRAUD
EVEN A SMALL PRACTICAL RESULT WILL SUFFICE
The accused was a coalmine, they mined a certain amount and received a wage, if they mined more they would receive a bonus. Each miner had a ‘hutch’ tagged to ensure they received the correct pay. What happened in the case was the one miner swapped the tags to attempt to receive more money. Neither achieved the bonus. The amount of the coal gained each day was recorded.
Held. Adcock was convicted of fraud as he recorded to having mined much more coal than what he had actually gained.
Bryne v. H.M. Advocate
WILFUL FIRE-RAISING
One party set fire to a piece of paper, which caused the whole building to go up in flames.
The courts got rid of different terms and defined as wilful fire-raising.
It is the mens rea, which distinguish between wilful and culpable.
** Smith v Donnelly
BREACH OF THE PEACE
The accused lay on a road and was charged with BOP.
She said it was an incompatible crime with article 7 of the ECHR
The courts said that it is very clearly defined. These cases added ‘severe’ and ‘serious’ to definition. They narrowed down what actually fell under ‘breach of the peace’
Leading case in Breach of the peace Refusal to cooperate with the police is no longer a conviction
Held. Convicted of BOP.
** Harris v. H.M. Advocate
BREACH OF THE PEACE
CONDUCT MUST AFFECT THE PUBLIC PEACE
Mr Harris, well known figure. Dispute with girlfriend over a mini.
In this case Mr Harris was charge with 2 accounts of breach of the peace, that he knew information about where the families of the police men that charged him lived, worked, when to school etc.
5 judges heard the case; private conversation element comes in to play
There must be a public element. How can one statement made to another person in a private situation come to be breach of the peace.
** Cadder v. H.M. Advocate
RIGHT TO A LAWYER/RIGHT TO AN INTERVIEW WITH A SOLICITOR
The Supreme Court held that Cadder’s rights under Article 6(1) of the ECHR had been breached because he had been denied access to a solicitor before he was interviewed by the police.
Therefore Scottish police can no longer question suspects without offering the suspect a private consultation with a lawyer, not only before an interview but also at any time during the interview at the suspect’s request.
** Thomson v. H.M. Advocate
COERCION
HUME’S 4 CRITERIA
Accused convicted of robbery for having driven the ‘getaway’ van. He claimed that he was forced at gun point to drive the van.
Criteria -
1. An immediate threat of death or bodily harm.
- There must be an inability to to resist the threat.
- Did the accused play a backward.
- Minimal part in the attack.
R. v. Dudley and Stephens
NECESSITY
NO DEFENCE TO MURDER
Two people cast adrift after they has been swept of a yacht
They killed a boy that and ate his flesh and drank his blood, claiming necessity
Held. The two parties were charged with murder, as the killing could not be justified as a worldly necessity. Killing someone is not a necessity to preserve another’s life. Not a defence for murder.
Moss v. Howdle
NECESSITY
DANGER OF DEATH OF GREAT BODILY HARM
Leading case for necessity, related to statutory offence of driving in excess of the speed limit.
Theory of ‘duress of circumstances’.
Speeding because passenger was ill. Only a cramp.
Held. Not reasonable.
H.M. Advocate v. Anderson
NECESSITY IN A MURDER CASE
A man was charged with murder while youths were attacking his car
At the time when the victim was run over, the victim was not threatening the accused or his son. Anderson decided that the only way to save his life and his sons was to run over the boy to kill the boy. The question at hand was whether this was a necessity to kill the boy, in order to prevent the mob from killing his son.
Held. Case was acquitted.
