criminal cases Flashcards
(40 cards)
R V G and R (2004) - (overruled Caldwell recklessness which said serious and obvious risk and they failed to consider whether or not they were risk as well as being aware of risk) (they said for criminal damage and all crimes caldwell recklessness should not be used)
Facts: Boys set fire to newspapers = burnt supermarket
Ratio : Recklessness: 1) aware of risk that exists/will exist 2) in circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take that risk
Larsonneur
French national deported from Ireland to UK, upon arrival, charged w being an illegal person
held:
Her conviction was upheld despite the fact that she had not voluntarily come to England.
but for - R V white case
mother in law killed by son in law by poison but autopsy report showed that she died of heart attack
- h. ‘But for’ the defendant’s act would she have died ? yes she would have died anyway of heart attack. Therefore, the d was not the factual cause of the victims death . still liable for attempted murder
R V Hughes - more than minimal (legal causation element)
- facts: D - no full licence or insurance, V intoxicated, crossed wrong side + collided
- held : Said Hughes driving merely set the scene for the death It was just too minimal to count as a legally effective cause
- must do more than set the scene
- significance: Meaning of causation is context-specific, P may apply diff legal rules of causation in diff situations’
breaking the chain of causation - third party intervention
1) kennedy - free, deliberate and informed action breaks chain of causation
2) Free and deliberate but not informed example = micheal (1840)( boys action was not informed d meant for wife to give poison to baby si d was liable )
3) empress car co -
D left tap on diesel tank next to river, trespasser on + leaked river
Trespassers act not abnormal and extraordinary, D created situation to allow discharge
Company liable
r v cheshire
d shot v who was recovering from gunshot wound and died from a complication of a tracheotomy
CA said no break in chain because they said it’s sufficient that his acts contributed significantly to the result. The negligence had to be so independent of ds act that it was in itself potent and causing death
R V smith
smith - The defendant, a soldier, got in a fight at an army barracks and stabbed another soldier.They failed to diagnose that his lung had been punctured. The soldier died. The defendant was convicted of murder and appealed contending that if the victim had received the correct medical treatment he would not have died.
Held: The stab wound was an operating cause of death and therefore the conviction was upheld.
R V jordan - succesful break in chain of causation
The defendant stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to hospital where he was given anti-biotics after showing an allergic reaction to them. He was also given excessive amounts of intravenous liquids. He died of pneumonia 8 days after admission to hospital. At the time of death his wounds were starting to heal.
- Held:
The victim died of the medical treatment and not the stab wound. The defendant was not liable for his death.
thin skull rule - R V Blaud
D stabbed V, V denied blood transfusion: Jahovas + died. If she consented to it, she would not have died.
Refusal of blood transfusion didn’t break the chain , stab wound was the S+O cause of death.
Thin skull rule: unexpected frailty of V is not a valid defence to the seriousness of any injury caused
Manslaughter conviction upheld
R V Wallace
D put acid on V, V paralysed, V went to father in Belgium = voluntary euthanasia
Could not reasonably foresee harm + not significant/operating cause
so appeal allowed
breaking chain of causation - victims reaction to ds action - R V Roberts
• An intervening action will not break the chain of causation if it was the natural result that a reasonable person could have foreseen
driver tried to sexually harass passenger and she jumped out of car and was injured
CA said driver caused injuries
R V Miller - exception to ommision rule 1 - judge made exception
Cigg, saw small fire, went to sleep in a diff room = house fire + substantial damage
AR could include failure to take reasonable steps which align with one’s power that oneself created. Once he was aware when he woke up, he had duty.
D convicted of arson
exception to ommision 2 - assumed responsibility
sinclair, evans, Gibbons V Proctor
1)- Sinclair, Johnson and smith (1998) Sinclair was flatmate who stayed until the victim had died so charged
2) Evans - half sister gives cocain - falls in coma - doesnt call ambulance - assumes responsibility by creating dangerous situation
3) gibbons V proctor - parents - assumed responisbility over child charged when they didnt feed kid and kid died
nedrick - clear defintiion of intention after long tim e of hyam and maloney causing confusion
similar case of fire - grudge - NOT legal definition of bleak intention - that is evidence specific - but defined it as ‘was death or serious bodily harm a virtually certain consequence of the defendants actions and were d sure about that’. If they weren’t sure about that then they weren’t entitled to infer death was intended. (then they couldn’t convict of murder and vice versa)
- in woollin they changed entitled to find
reckless journey definition
cunnigham - d have to forsee the risk of endangerment to life but still gone on to take that risk (subjective)
I
I
Caldwell - objective - An objective one : the d would be reckless in he gives no thought to a obvious and serious risk
I
I
overruled by R V G and R (2004) - reinsttaed the subjective recklessness test : so a person will only be reckless when they are aware the risk exists Added qualification
also last clause of criminal damages act it is in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk e
ended with subjective recklessness defintion
thabo - meli and Fagan V metropolitan police (continuing act)
AR and MR need to coincide
latimer - transferred malice
latimer wants to hit someone blow misses hits another victim and MR is same so transfers and latimer is liable
R V Bollom -
d inflicted injuries on partners 17 month old daughter - convicted of GBH - appealed on the grounds that jury should not have taken into account age and should have just decided whether injuries were harsh enough
• It was held: the jury are entitled to take into account the particular characteristic of the victim
• In a murder case, Jury might take a more restrictive view of what amounts to ‘serious harm’
R V Cunningham - serious harm is a jury matter - fualt element for murder beyond intention to kill
R V Cunningham - d broke V arms through blows stuck with a chair. V died . Serious/ grievous harm a jury matter - no need to show ‘life threatening harm’ intended.
- Vickers and Cunningham show that the fault element for murder extends beyond intending to kill and includes intending to cause serious harm
Adamako - anesthesiologist
• D, an anaesthetist, failed to observe during an eye operation that the tube detached from the ventilator causing v to suffer from a cardiac arrest and eventually die
• A competent anaesthetist would have known in 15 sec but d took 5 min
- charged with GN manslaughter because breach of duty of care
Misra
2 doctors charged with GN - tried to use art 7 of ECHR but didn’t work
- meaning of gross left to jury
R V Rose - serious and obvious risk
• D was optometrist - she examined a 7 year old - she forgot to do a intra ocular examination that she was obliged by statute to perform - this kid had a serious condition which he died
GN found by jury
COA - overturned conviction and said a serious and obvious risk of death from your failure and that wasn’t the case .
Lider
drove off while v speaking to him - charged with reckless manslaughter
- Jury must be convinced that d was aware of risk of death or risk of injury to the victim and disregarded it.
v This obviously was the case and court found him guilty
unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter - church
The risk of some harm is enough in this version of manslaughter
