Criminal - Core principles cases Flashcards
Hill v Baxter
AR - General principles
Swarm of bees in car
The act must be voluntary
R v Stone and Dobson
AR - Liability for omissions
Anorexic sister - no support - died
Where there is a special relationship between D due to family ties or because D has assumed a duty towards V, D may incur criminal liability for failure to act.
R v Pittwood
AR - liability for omissions
Railway gate keeper case
Where there is a contractual obligation to act, D may incur criminal liability for failure to act.
R v Miller
AR - liability for omissions
Squatter + cigarette + fire
If a person has created a dangerous situation, he has a duty to act.
R v Moloney
MR - Intent
D shot stepfather after drunken competition to see who could load fastest; claimed he had no direct intent to kill or cause serious harm.
Direct intent is where the result was the person’s aim, purpose, goal or desire.
R v Woollin
MR - Indirect/oblique intent
D killed three-month-old son by throwing against hard surface; had no desire (direct intent) to kill or injur, question remained re. indirect intent.
In deciding whether there is indirect intent, jury must decide whether:
1) the death or serious injury was virtually certain to occur as a consequence of D’s actions, and
2) if so, did D foresee death or serious injury as a virtual certainty?
If yes, jury may find indirect intent.
N.B: this confirmed the test laid out in R v Nedrick
R v Cunningham
MR - Recklessness
D ripped gas meter from wall to steal money, causing gas to escape - seeped through small cracks in wall and poisoned FMIL.
Malice means either:
1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that in fact was done, or;
2) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not (i.e. D foresor risk of harm but carried on). Recklessness is subjective.
R v G
MR - Recklessness
Schizophrenic D - hollow haystack and lit fire.
D is reckless when he carries out a deliberate act appreciating that there is a risk that damage to property may result from his act.
R v Latimer
MR - Transferred malice
D quarrelling with man in pub, aimed blow at him with belt but struck another person - injured - charged with s20 OAPA offence.
If D has malice to commit crime against one victim (or particular piece of property), malice is transferred so that MR he had in relation to original victim is applicable to the AR he commits against another, unintended victim.
R v Pembilton
MR - Transferred malice
D threw stone at people, missed and broke window - charged with unlawful and with malice causing damage to property - acquitted on appeal
Malice will only transfer if AR committed is the same type as D had originally had in mind.
Thabo-Meli v R
Coincidence of MR and AR
Ds hit man with car with intent to kill, believed him dead and threw body off cliff (what actually killed him). Argued that not guilty of murder since AR and MR didn’t coincide. Found guilty on grounds that acts were to be viewed as a series of events.
Where there is an implied series of events, D’s actions should be seen as a continuing AR; then sufficient to show that at some time during these events, D had requisite MR for him to be found to be guilty of the crime.
R v Le Brun
Coincidence of MR and AR
D assaulted wife - tried to move her but dropped her - fractured skull which eventually killed her - argued not murder as AR and MR didn’t coincide. Held confirmed Thabo-Meli:
The unlawful application of force and eventual act causing death can be viewed as the same sequence of events; the fact there was a lapse in time between the two does not enable D to escape liability.
Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Criminal Damage - definition of damage
Drawings on pavement made using soluble chalks; amounted to criminal damage because local authority incurred expense in cleaning up.
If expense is involved in restoring property to its previous conditions, the court is likely to find that damage has been established.
Roe v Kingerlee
Criminal Damage - definition of damage
D smeared ‘mud’ over the walls of a police cell; cost £7 to clean it; conviction of criminal damage upheld.
The issue of whether damage has been caused is a matter of fact and degree to be determined in the common sense way.
R v Dudley
Aggravated Criminal Damage - AR
D threw firebomb into property - quickly put out; held that MR had to be considered at the time of the act.
Life need not actually be endangered for D to be convicted of ACD. If D intended to endanger life or was reckless as to the endangerment of life through the property damage - guilty notwithstanding that no’one’s life was in danger.
