Criminal: key cases Flashcards Preview

First year law > Criminal: key cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Criminal: key cases Deck (179)
Loading flashcards...
1

Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

D will be liable for a possession of drugs even if they are mistaken as to what it is they are in possession of (cannabis/scent)

2

R v Jordan

Medical conduct in a homicide case will break the chain of causation where it is so grossly negligent as to override the effect of the original crime e.g. administering a antibiotic which the victim is known to have an intolerance towards

3

R v Cheshire

Medical conduct in a homicide case will not break the chain of causation where it is merely negligent e.g. the victim developing breathing problems after an operation

4

R v Larsonneur

You can be liable merely for the location you find yourself in (situational liability) (deportation from Ireland to England)

5

R v Deller

The actus reus must always be proven - even if the defendant asserts that they have conducted it

6

R v Roberts

An instinctive 'fight or flight' response from the victim will not break the chain of causation so long as it is a proportional response to the defendant's conduct (jump from car)

7

R v Paggett

Third party conduct may break the chain of causation where it is a voluntary and purposeful action (girlfriend as human shield)

8

R v Hayward

The 'thin skull' rule - the defendant must take their victim as they find them, even if they are unusually sensitive to force (wife dies after being chased and shouted at due to condition)

9

R v White

The but for test should establish factual causation; if the death would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct, they are liable (spiked drink and heart attack)

10

R v Blaue

The victim's own conduct will not break the chain of causation so long as the defendant's conduct is still an operative cause of the death (Jehovah's Witness)

11

R v Kennedy (No 2) - causation

A person will not be liable for the death of a person to whom they supply drugs, resulting in an overdose, so long as that person accepted the drugs voluntarily and while well informed

12

R v Evans (Gemma)

A person will be liable for the death of a person to whom they supply drugs where, through their conduct, they create an exceptionally dangerous situation and fail to take reasonable steps to eliminate that danger

13

Stone and Dobinson

A duty to act exists between people where one has assumed a duty of care for the other in some way e.g. by inviting them to live in their house

14

Gibbons and Proctor

A duty to act exists between people in familial relationships, particularly parent-child relationships (mistress given money for child)

15

R v Pittwood

A duty to act may arise from contractual obligations e.g. the obligation to close a railway gate

16

R v Miller

A duty to act exists where a person has created a dangerous situation e.g. leaving a lit cigarette on a mattress

17

Attorney General (Reference No 3 of 1994)

A foetus does not have a life in the sense that it cannot be a victim of homicide (stabbing pregnant girlfriend)

18

Airedale NHS Trust v Bland

Turning off a life-support machine is an omission rather an act, and a person is legally dead when they are brain dead (Hillsborough disaster victim)

19

R v Vickers

One mens rea for murder is the direct intention to kill or cause GBH; the latter in this case

20

R v Woollin

One mens rea for murder is the oblique intention to kill or cause GBH, and a jury may FIND (not infer) intention from foresight of a virtual certainty (thrown baby)

21

R v Lowe

For constructive manslaughter, the defendant must have done an act (not an omission e.g. leaving a sick baby untreated)

22

R v Andrews

For constructive manslaughter, the defendant's act must be unlawful, so, for example, overtaking a car would not suffice

23

R v Church

For constructive manslaughter, the defendant's unlawful act must be objectively dangerous e.g. throwing someone into a river

24

R v Dawson and others

For constructive manslaughter, the danger involved in the defendant's unlawful act must be obvious to all sober and reasonable persons (the danger involved in scaring someone with a heart condition would not be obvious to those who did not know of the condition)

25

DPP v Newbury and Jones

For constructive manslaughter, the danger involved in the defendant's unlawful act must be obvious to all sober and reasonable persons e.g. throwing large rocks over a railway bridge

26

R v Adomako

For medical conduct to amount to gross negligence manslaughter, the medic must owe a duty of care, that duty must be breached by their conduct, that breach must cause the death of the patient, and the breach must be grossly negligent e.g. failing to notice a disconnected oxygen tube for 6 minutes

27

R v Doughty

One problem with the old law of provocation was that it set the bar too low for what constituted provoking behaviour e.g. a baby crying

28

R v Malcherek and Steel

Turning off life support does not break the chain of causation where D's conduct caused V to be put on the life support

29

R v Duffy

One problem with the old law of provocation was that it was gender biased. A woman who killed her long-term abusive partner after some consideration i.e. not suddenly, could not apply this defence.

30

R v Clinton

Sexual infidelity on its own is not a qualifying trigger, however it may form part of a background of information amounting to a qualifying trigger (suicidal man taunted about cheating partner)