criminal cases Flashcards
(85 cards)
1
Q
Melling v O’Mathghamhna
A
Criminal charge defined by three elements:
1. An offence against the public at large
2. Offence has a punitive nature
3. Mens rea (intent, ‘guilty mind’)
2
Q
Dowdall v DPP
A
Appeal denied for jury trial because of gang-related offences, Special Criminal Court allowed full jurisdiction
3
Q
Woolmington v DPP
A
- Accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty
- Burden of proof is on the Prosecution to prove accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
4
Q
People v Byrne
A
Not enough for the Jury to be satisfied but must belief guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
5
Q
R v Larsonneur [UK]
A
facts: accused convicted for illegally entering the UK past the date of passport conditions, despite being deported back to the Uk by Irish authorities.
Held: offence was simply determined by being present in the UK, not determined by circumstances (SofA: n/a voluntariness)
6
Q
DPP v Foley
A
(state of affairs AC)
1. Possessor has complete physical control over item
2. Knowledge of its existence
3. Intends to have possession and exclusively from others
7
Q
DPP v Murphy
A
- Causation can be inferred: abundant evidence which makes it irresistible for a conclusion of the crime to be drawn
-Victim’s body was discovered in a state that pointed to the probability that she was murdered
8
Q
DPP v Davis 2001
A
- Accused could be convicted of murder if injuries inflicted ‘were related to the death in more than a minimal way’
— D aggressively kicked victim, leading to her death → assault related to the death in more than a minimal way
9
Q
DPP v Joel 2016
A
- Accused’s conduct must be a ‘substantial’ to the cause of death
— Appellant convicted of negligent manslaughter of appellant’s mother
10
Q
Dunne v DPP 2017
A
- accused convicted of attempted murder leaving victim in vegetative state. Victim was then taken off life support in this case and died, D convicted of murder
- Reaffirmed Davis: accused acts need not be the sole or main cause of death to have causation
- To break the chain of causation, the intervention (ending life support) must amount to an act so independent of the act of the accused that it should be regarded as the cause of death; good samaritan act not independent enough to override
11
Q
DPP v O’Loughlin
A
- D beat homeless victim and shoved him down the rubbish chute of the apartment block, victim subsequently died of suffocation from rubbish stuck in the chute
- Rubbish stuck in chute did not break the chain of causation b/c it was there before the D’s actions (regardless of Ds knowledge of it) no novus actus interveniens
12
Q
DPP v Outram
A
- D beat an elderly man with a stick, victim died of natural causes and D’s assault
- D’s actions were an operative cause in the victims death
13
Q
R v Blaue [UK]
A
- D attacked v (a jehovah’s witness) with a knife, v require a blood transfusion but denied it
- the knife stabbing caused her death and the v refusing a blood transfusion did not break the chain of causation between the act and death
14
Q
R v Williams (novus actus, acts of victim) [UK]
A
- The voluntary act made by a victim measured by:
1. foreseeability of harm to the v from the threat
2. and whether v’s conduct was proportionate to the threat
15
Q
R v Pagett (novus actus, involutary act of 3rd party) [UK]
A
- Accused used victim as a human shield against the police, victim killed in police cross-fire, accused convicted of manslaughter
- Police fire NOT novus actus interveniens b/c police were acting in self-defence
16
Q
People v McGrath
A
- D assaulted V leaving him unconscious on the road, passerby doctor called ambulance and left to get first aid, other passerby put V in car and drove him to the hospital but blood had reached the lungs and V died
- Putting V in the car may have facilitated the internal bleeding but it did not introduce any new cause of death
- Passer-by acted with well-intentions brought upon by accused’s wrongful act (good samaritans)
17
Q
Dunne v DPP (novus actus, medical intervention)
A
- Withdrawal from medical treatment in the best interest of the victim does not absolve criminal liability for OG injury
18
Q
Fagan v Metro Police [UK]
A
- D accidentally parked car on policeman’s foot, when asked to move by the policeman he refused, convicted of assault
- OG action was not assault, but refusal to move was a failure to act and therefore contributed to the continued action of an assault (cannot be the initial cause though)
19
Q
R v Stone & Dobinson [UK]
A
- Elderly woman (w/ anorexia and bedridden) living with low IQ brother and his mistress, V found dead in her room weeks late rin a terrible state - evidence she could have survived if she received attention earlier
- Mistress assumed responsibility when she tried to wash V and unsuccessfully tried to get a doctor, provided food
- Stone had a duty arising from a familial relationship
20
Q
DPP v Joel
A
- Ds ill mother moved into D and partner’s home, supposed to be a temporary arrangement, mother offered spot at hospital but refused despite encouragement from Def’s
- Prosecution had not established beyond a reasonable doubt that D’s partner had assumed responsibility
21
Q
R v Dytham [UK]
A
- Off-duty police officer witnessed man being beaten to death and did not intervene or call for backup, convicted of ‘misconduct of an office of justice’
22
Q
DPP v Bermudez
A
- D told police he had nothing in his pockets, office subsequently pricked finger on syringe in pocket
- If person creates danger which exposes another to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, then causation by omission can be established
23
Q
DPP v Murray
A
- Subjective view: preferred in Ireland
- Bonnie and Clyde’, robbed bank, shot off-duty garda (wasn’t aware it was an officer) by female assailant when fleeing
- Charged w/ capital murder - mens rea: intention to kill/seriously injure a Garda acting in his duty
Judges accepted that a conscious disregard of a risk would constitute recklessness
— Subjective test: ‘A person acts recklessly…when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of the offence exists or will result from his conduct’
24
Q
People v Dunleavy
A
- Accused killed cyclist while driving on the wrong side of the road with no headlights
- Test: would a reasonable person have been aware of the risks; and knowing the risks would a reasonable person still acted (objective)
25
DPP v Cagney
- ‘Recklessness involves not merely the taking of a risk but the knowingly taking the risk’
- Embrace subjective test in Murray
- Caldwell rejected
26
Metro Police v Caldwell [UK]
- Objective test initially preferred in the Uk. Overruled by R v G (UK subjective test)
- Reckless measured objectively by the risk a D has created: does not recognise the risk OR recognises the potential risk but continues
27
DPP v Douglas & Hayes (MR - intention)
- Intention: which the party ‘intending’ does more than contemplate: he decided to bring about and which he has a reasonable prospect of being able to bring about, by his own fruition
- Deliberate reckless action may be sufficient to to infer intention
28
DPP v O'Loughlin (MR intention)
Objective test: in order to be found guilty of murder, jury must be satisfied that the individual intended to kill or to cause serious injury to the deceased
29
R v Lattimer [UK]
- Court said man has mens rea for assault offence because he intended to strike a person, even if he did not intend to strike the particular person he hit
30
Reilly v Patwell
- Strict liability offences are a half-way house’ between traditional mens rea and absolute liability
- Strict liability test:
-- The moral gravity of the offence
-- The social stigma attached to the offence
-- The penalty
-- The ease with which the law is obeyed
-- Whether or not absolute liability would encourage obedience
-- The ease with which the law might be endorsed
-- The social consequences of non-compliance
31
CC v Ireland
- Criminal Law Act 1935: ‘Any person who unlawfully and carnally knows any girl under the age of fifteen years shall be guilty of a felony’
-- Crime of absolute liability - no defence of reasonable belief in girl’s older age
- SC said 1935 Act is inconsistent w/ constitution
- Amended Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act, 2006
-- No longer absolute liability: defendant must prove that they were reasonably mistaken that the child had been 15 years old
--- Objective test: would a reasonable persons concluded that the child was the age they said they were
32
CW v Minister for justice
The statute’s (age) objective is for the burden of proof on the defence and the requirement that the mistake be reasonable
33
Sweeney v Ireland
- How the accused made his contribution is of no consequence, the D may be a major or minor influence. Could be active help or mere encouragement/advice
- Mens rea: realise the aid is helping with a crime
34
AG Reference 1975 (secondary liability - procurement) [UK]
- Under the offence of procuring, does not need to be shared intention b/w the person procuring and the person committing the offence
- Procurement cannot be found unless there is a causal link b/w what the accused procured and the offence committed by the primary party
- D spiked friend’s drink → friend drink drove → but D did not know friend would be driving → not guilty of procuring
35
R v Calhaem (secondary liability) [UK]
- D convicted accessory to murder: D counselled Z to murder V
-- Z decided not to carry out the murder but during a mental episode killed V anyway
- Court decided that this instruction was enough to contribute to an accessory
36
R v Stringer (secondary liability) [UK]
- Ds (father, son and other man chased V around an estate, other man stabbed the V (father & son distant from V)
- Court held father & son liable b/c there is a link b/w the Ds conduct and the offence based on an objective test for the jury to conclude
37
People v Ryan (secondary liability)
- Altercation between two groups, both armed w/ intent to fight
-- Leader of the Def group armed w/ a car jack and killed someone from the other group
- Def convicted of manslaughter of the basis that his presence knowingly gave the leader aid and encouragement
38
DPP v Madden
- D stole the car used for the murder and made an admission to the Gardai while in custody
- D thought companions were going to do something serious to V, but not kill him
- Common sense test: D knew V was going to seriously harmed, enough knowledge to infer his knowledge of the criminal activity he was aiding in
39
DPP v Egan (Secondary liability) (w/ Madden)
- Establish liability if:
-- A crime was to be committed
The crime involved the theft of goods
-- With this knowledge he assisted the commission of the crime when he agreed to make his workshop available
- Not necessary for the prosecution to establish that a person who has aided the principal offender knew either the means which were employed or the nature of the goods
-- only need to show evidence of 2nd D knowing the crime that was intended by 1st D
40
DPP v Murray (common design)
- Common design is not limited to the direct objective, must consider circumstance that could arise in fulfilling that pursuit
- Common design to rob a bank by use of force, assumed that the use of force was not limited to the bank premises but the whole objective
41
DPP v Doohan (common design)
- D hired co-D to seriously harm V
D claimed he expected coD to beat him up, but co-D shot him in the leg, bled out and died
- Valid common design b/c it was sufficient mens rea for the Ds to commit serious harm and this was an unusual, but possible consequence that arose out of this agreement
42
DPP v Cummins & Davy
- Must be express or implicit evidence of such a joint enterprise agreement (fundamental to joint enterprise)
-- Direct involvement not necessary to prove a person's guilt by common design, just need evidence that there was an agreement
--- Not enough in this case to prove common design because there was no agreement, baseball bat not explicitly
43
R v White (inchoate - attempt) [UK]
- D attempted to kill murder mother w/ cyanide
- Court determined that it was sufficient that the attempted murder was initiated, doesn't matter that plan is unsuccessful
44
AG v Thornton (inchoate - attempt)
- D asked doctor about abortion medication for pregnant girlfriend, doc reported D to authorities and D charged with attempting to procure an abortion
- Charge appealed b/c an attempt must consist of an act done with a specific intent to commit a particular crime, it must go beyond mere preparation and must be a direct movement towards the commission of an act
45
AG v O'Sullivan (inchoate - attempt)
- D was a midwife and would be given additional allowance if she went beyond her typical number of clients, filed to claim money for patients she didn't have
- Convicted of the offence of obtaining money by false pretences by filing false cases (but did not receive the money)
- Proximity test: the act down towards the target offence must be close to completion of the target offence in order to be a criminal attempt
46
Thornton versus O'Sullivan
- O'Sullivan and Thorton revealed the complexities involved in deciding where to draw the boundary between mere preparation and the actual commission of the offence so as to satisfy an attempt offence
- It has been argued that Thorton embraces the unequivocality approach (which refers to when one’s actions clearly reflect the guilty mind, thus held liable for an attempt) whereas Sullivan appears to support the proximity approach (which refers to one’s act which is sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt to commit an offence) Ireland favours proximity test
47
Hegarty v Limerick Prison
- was an explicit agreement for conspiracy
- If you conspire to commit a tort you can still be held liable for criminal conspiracy (conspiring to defame someone)
48
DPP v Keane (inchoate - conspiracy)
- Illustrates how an agreement can be inferred from evidence of activity that has the appearance of being done from an agreement made
- No direct evidence of an agreement b/w the two Defs in question but each Def possessed evidence for bomb-making and names of other co-conspirators
- Court found a clear association between the parties concerned
49
R v Most (inchoate - incitement) [UK]
- Published a newspaper encouraging revolutionaries to assassinate heads of state
- Court held that even though this was not directed towards a particular person it was still an incitement to murder
-- Encouragement can be indirect
50
AG v Capaldi (inchoate - incitement)
- A mere expression of desire for a certain crime to happen is not an incitement
- it is open to the jury to find that the communication by the Def was an effort to persuasion and commit incitement
51
AG v O'Sullivan
- Leading Irish case
- To be found guilty of an attempt, must be shown that the acts committed were sufficiently proximate to the target offence (mere preparation will not suffice)
52
R v Brown (consensual harm) [UK]
- A person cannot consent to an act which has as its purpose, or which will have the effect of probably causing bodily harm
- Men found guilty of assault occasioning in actual bodily harm
--- Sex ring engaging in masochistic acts of consensual mutilation
53
DPP v K (infliction of force)
- K(Def) hid tube of acid in a hand dryer, another schoolboy used dryer and suffered permanent scarring as a result from the acid
- Def actions were indirect, but he was as guilty of assault as if he had turned on the machine himself
- Does not establish any minimum requirement of force
54
DPP v Kirwan (serious harm)
- D attacked man w/ pint glass, V sustained temporary vision impairment and permanent scars D tried to argue seriousness
- Court held that remedial medical attention does not detract from the gravity of the OG injury to take it out of ‘serious harm’
55
DPP v Brown (serious harm & consent)
- Prison, D hit V’s head w/ an improvised weapon causing serious harm
- D claimed there was a consensual agreement w/ V to get V moved to another prison, but V denied giving consent
- SC held that consent of the V not a valid defence where harm was inflicted for an unlawful purpose (you can consent to assault (/causing harm), but only for lawful purposes)
56
DPP v AC (serious harm)
- Appellant charged w/ 2 offences: assault causing harm (S.3) and assaulting causing serious harm (S.4)
- Prosecution sought to adduce certificate provided by a medical professional
-- Judge: dismissed prosecution’s argument b/c certificate inadmissible hearsay; required that the certificate should be prepared by the practitioner who carried out the examination of the injured party
--- The person signing such a certificate must have done more than simply engage in the medical records, Certificate had moved beyond examination findings and into opinion stage
57
R v Ireland (harassment)
- D and V in short romantic relationship which V ended
- D proceeded to harass V over several months
- Repeated phone calls caused psychological damage, didn't matter if the violence was indirectly inflicted, still an act of violence
-- Immediate proximity b/w accused and V not necessary as fear can be instilled as readily through a phone than a window
58
DPP v Cagney (reckless endangerment)
- Ds and V fought outside club, D struck V who fell to the ground unconscious and died; charged w/ manslaughter & endangerment
- Manslaughter dropped b/c death was unintentional, but endangerment upheld by jury
- APPEALED in SC
-- Difficulty in proving S.13 - accused himself must have adverted to the risk (subjective recklessness), b/c accused had not adverted the risk, no S.13
-- Had to be ‘intentional or reckless engagement in conduct which created a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another’
59
DPP v Crawford (lawful use of force)
- S.18 (self-defence) applies indistinctly to all offences, so that it governs both fatal and non-fatal offences alike.
60
DPP v Kane (domestic violence)
- D found guilty of coercive control, assault causing harm
- Appeal dismissed: coercive-control offence ‘to capture the emotional and psychological abuse that can occur in an intimate relationship’
- First man to be convicted of coercive control by a jury in
Ireland
61
Minister for Post v Campbell
- A person can enjoy actual control if they ‘personally can exercise physical control over it’ and they ‘cannot properly be said to be in control of posseession of something they have no knowledge of its existence’
62
AG v Grey
- Accused owed gas for domestic purposes as per contract, but term not undertaken by employer. Accused took batteries from employer to have electricity in home
- Held: if accused believed he was entitled to goods, acquitted due to lack of dishonesty
- He honestly believed that he was entitled to the the batteries
63
DPP v Mangan (robbery)
Force does not need to be directed against the victim
64
R v Hale (robbery) [UK]
- 2 Ds entered V’s house; stole her jewellery box. After taking box, they tied her up
- Convicted of robbery
- D argued that the offence was mere theft b/c force not used upon the V until after theft took place
- Arg rejected: continuing act, the whole course of conduct (stealing and appropriation) does not finish when D meets minimum requirements for appropriation
65
KM v DPP (D of Infancy)
- Accused (13yo boy) accused of sexual assault against V1 when she was 8, and SA & rape of V2 when she was 11
- To rebut the presumption of innocence must be evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was seriously wrong and not merely mischievous
66
DPP v Furlong (D of infancy)
- Court held that there was prosecutorial delay (delay by Gardai causing the D to turn 18 before trial of offence committed as minor)
Gardai did not have the awareness of dealing with serious juvenile offences in an expedited manner
67
Amah v Ireland (D of Infancy - murder sentence)
- HC found: unconstitutional to impose mandatory life sentence for murder on a person who committed the offence under 18
- HC held: to impose the mandatory life sentence on a child who ‘ages out’ would be a breach of their rights
68
M'Naghten Rules 1843 (D of insanity)
- No act is a crime if the person who does it is done prevented by any disease affecting his mind
--- From knowing the nature and quality of the act (or if he did know the nature and quality of the act,)
--- From knowing the act was wrong
- Nature and quality of the act:
--- Refers to physical character of act, not moral/legal quality
--- D must prove that he didn't know what he was doing, must have thought it was something else entirely
- Knowledge that the act is wrong
--- Some doubt as to whether a lack of knowledge or belief that the act is morally wrong would suffice
69
R v Windle (D of insanity) [UK]
- Windle killed wife who was mentally unstable and always threatening to committ suicide
- Evidence to suggest that Windle was suffering from communicated insanity and that while he knew what he was doing was legally wrong, he believed due to a ‘disease of the mind’ that it was morally right
- Held: no defence of insanity b/c he understood it was legally wrong
70
Doyle v Wicklow (insantiy, Irish M'Naghten rules)
- SC held that irish law went beyond M’Naghten Rules and that an irresistible impulse could be included in insanity plea
- Accused, 17, set fire to and burned down a slaughterhouse believing humans did not need animals for food
- Medical evidence asserted that accused was suffering from a mental disorder which led him to believe he could not punished
- M’Naghten rules didn’t provide sole test for determining sanity
71
DPP v Alchimonek (IE - Insanity, irresistible impulse)
- Accused was convicted of manslaughter (car crash)
- D argued plea of insanity - psychiatrist gave evidence that in their view D was suffering from a schizophrenia
- Expert for prosecution agreed but diagnosis was psychotic depression
- Judge states that the jury had no option but to accept that on the balance of probabilities, the defence of insanity was available to the accused
- Jury returned a majority guilty verdict, D appealed conviction, appeal allowed because Jury neglected strong insanity evidence
72
DPP v Kenna (IE - insanity, irresistible impulse)
- Issue was whether the accused met criteria for special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity
- Conflicting evidence as to D’s insanity b/w to experts
- D convicted of attempted murder and assault causing serious harm
- Appealed denied: jury was able to reasonably deduce a special verdict despite the conflicting evidence
73
DPP v Heffernan (insanity, diminished responsibility)
- For diminished responsibility, D has the burden of proof
74
Bratty v Ag of N. IE (automatism)
- An act which is done by the muscles w/o control of mind
- Intoxication not valid to acquit offences (would be manslaughter)
75
R v Quick (insanity vs automatism) [UK]
- D was a mental hospital nurse, during diabetes related blackout D injured a patient
- Judge ruled it was M’naghten, didn’t allow jury to consider automatism
- Depending on diabetes incident could be external or internal
76
R v Bailey (automatism, diabetes) [UK]
- D diabetic and required insulin, D had low blood sugar and lost consciousness and attacked V
- If diabetic fails to take food after insulin injection he commits an assault, he may have valid defence of automatism unless jury proves degree of recklessness
77
AG v Whelan (duress)
- Whelan knowingly received stolen money, but claimed he accepted it only b/c he was threatened w/ violence
- Appeal held that threats of immediate death or serious violence enough to overbear human resistance should be valid justification:
--- Threats must be serious harm or death
--- Threats must be imminent
--- Threats must overbear the will of the accused
78
Dunne v DPP (Duress)
- Dunne shot V (V died 2 yrs later) said under duress
- Duress not valid under murder
79
DPP v Gleeson (Duress)
- Prison officer convicted of drug possession, claimed he was threatened by criminals
- SC duress test:
--- Coercion should reasonably be so serious to overcome the resistance of the person
--- The person feels genuinely under threat
--- Duress only applied if D has no available resort to any lawful alternative
--- NO subjective characteristics should be noted by jury
80
Southwark v Williams (D of Necessity) [UK]
- Necessity would open a door which no man could shut, only valid in very special circumstances
81
Re A (Conjoined Twins) (D of Necessity) [UK]
3 necessary requirement for necessity
1. Act is needed to avoid inevitable evil
2. No more should be done than is reasonably necessary for purpose to be achieved
3. The evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to evil avoided
82
R v Loosely (Entrapment) [UK]
1. Entrapment not a substantive defence
2. Justice system would be compromised by allowing state to punish someone who they entrapped
3. Court can exclude evidence if affect procedural fairness
83
Dental Board v O’Callaghan (Entrapment)
- Unqualified dentist practising was visited by Dental Board investigate who posed as client, D carried out dental work
- HC allowed conviction - only way to investigate issue
84
DPP v Mills (entrapment)
- D charged w/ drug offences after a Gardai set-up drug purchase
- Ensure that such operation is appropriately authorised & controlled, to not cause criminal conduct that would not otherwise occur:
--- Nature of offence
--- Reason for police operation
--- Presence or absence of malice
--- Nature/extent of police participation in crime
85
DPP v Bates (entrapment)
- D convicted of conspiracy to possess firearms, FBI agent involved in online transaction and tipped off Gardai
- Entrapment cannot arise simply b/c an opportunity was provided to a person to commit a crime to which was already a predisposition
