criminal cases Flashcards
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
