criminal law cases, paper 1 sec b

Question 1

hill v baxter

Answer 1

AREA OF LAW: Actus Reus- Guilty act
POINT OF LAW: The act must be voluntary
FACTS: Baxter was driving and stung by bees, causing a crash.
He was not guilty due to it being a reflex.

Question 2

r v pitwood

Answer 2

AREA OF LAW: Omissions- Actus Reus
POINT OF LAW: A duty to act under a contract
FACTS: Level crossing job, he wasn’t listening, resulted in 2 deaths.

Question 3

r v gibbons and proctor

Answer 3

AREA OF LAW: Omissions- Actus Reus
POINT OF LAW: Duty to act due to a relationship
FACTS: Gross negligence manslaughter, failure to care by father resulting in death by starvation.

Question 4

r v dytham

Answer 4

AREA OF LAW: Omissions- Actus Reus
POINT OF LAW: A duty to act through an official position
FACTS: Officer witnessed fights and did not take any steps to intervene

Question 5

r v miller

Answer 5

AREA OF LAW: Omissions- Actus Reus
POINT OF LAW: A duty to act from starting a chain of dangerous events.
FACTS: Homeless man started a fire from lighting a mattress and did not inform anyone, he was guilty of arson.

Question 6

dangerous dogs act 1991

Answer 6

AREA OF LAW: Omissions- Actus Reus
POINT OF LAW: Statutory duty to act
FACTS: Muzzle dangerous dogs in public to ensure safety for the public.

Question 7

r v pagett

Answer 7

AREA OF LAW: Actus Reus- causations in facts (but for test)
POINT OF LAW: To prove the consequence would not of happened but for the defendants actions.
FACTS: Girlfriend was killed in an open shooting due to actions performed by Pagett.
“The girlfriend death would not of happened but for pagett’s open shooting”

Question 8

r v white

Answer 8

AREA OF LAW: Causation in fact- Actus Reus
POINT OF LAW: The consequences would have happened but for the defendant’s actions resulting in a not guilty verdict. There is no causation fact.
FACTS: Cyanide was placed in the mother’s water so White could inherit her inheritance. She instead died naturally of a heart attack.

Question 9

r v kimsey

Answer 9

AREA OF LAW: Causation in law
POINT OF LAW: Must be more than “de minimis” - acceptable to tell the jury it must more more than a slight trifling link.
FACTS: The defendant was in a high-speed car chase losing control and causing the other driver to be killed. The defendant did not have to be the substantial cause of death.

Question 10

r v blaue

Answer 10

AREA OF LAW: Causation- Thin Skull Rule
POINT OF LAW: You must take your victim as you find them.
FACTS: Women was stabbed and refused to have a blood transfusion due to her religious beliefs. This resulted in her death.

Question 11

r v smith

Answer 11

AREA OF LAW: Causation in law- intervening act. “Novus Actus Interveniens”
POINT OF LAW: The defendants action must be more than minimal but it does not have to be Substantial.
FACTS: Stabbed in lungs and dropped three time by medics. At hospital a doctor tried to resuscitate which resulted in his death.
“medical intervention rarely breaks the chain of events”

Question 12

r v cheshire

Answer 12

AREA OF LAW: Causation in law- intervening act.
POINT OF LAW: The defendants actions must be more than minimal but it does not have to be substantial.
FACTS: The defendant shot the victim in the stomach which caused breathing problems so a tracheotomy was performed. Complications happened and victim died.
“medical intervention rarely breaks the chain of events”

Question 13

r v stone & dobinson

Answer 13

AREA OF LAW: Omissions- Actus Reus
POINT OF LAW: You are liable if you take on a duty voluntarily.
FACTS: Gross negligence manslaughter. Stone took on their older sister and failed to care for her which resulted in her death.

Question 14

r v jordan

Answer 14

AREA OF LAW: Causation in law- Intervening act.
POINT OF LAW: New intervening act will break the chain of events
FACTS: Victim is stabbed - goes to hospital and given antibiotics and has a severe reaction - stated on chart - doctor gives more - victim dies.

Question 15

r v malcherek

Answer 15

AREA OF LAW: Causation in law - intervening act.
POINT OF LAW: Switching off life support does not break the chain of causation and the defendant is still liable.
FACTS: Defendant shot victim and was put on life support for two years and the defendant was still liable two years later for the consequence which was death.

Question 16

r v roberts

Answer 16

AREA OF LAW: Causation in law- victims own act
POINT OF LAW: Victim reacted in a reasonable way and does not break the chain.
FACTS: Girl jumped from a car to escape from sexual advances - girl is injured and defendant is liable.

Question 17

r v williams

Answer 17

AREA OF LAW: Causation in law- victims own act.
POIN OF LAW: Victims actions were unreasonable so the chains of causations broke.
FACTS: Defendant grabs wallet and jumps out of car to escape causing injuries. Driver was not liable.

Question 18

r v mohan

Answer 18

AREA OF LAW: Mens Rea- Direct Intention
POINT OF LAW: True desire to bring out the consequence.
FACTS: Defendant initally stopped for the police, he slowed down but then accelerated.

Question 19

r v nedrick

Answer 19

AREA OF LAW: Mens Rea- Oblique intention
POINT OF LAW: If outcome is virtually certain to occur, the jury have the right to infer, defendant must be aware.
FACTS: Defendant had a grudge against women and intended to scare her by pushing a petrol bomb through her letter box, killing two.

Question 20

r v woolin

Answer 20

AREA OF LAW: Mens Rea- Oblique Intention
POINT OF LAW: Jury can infer intention if the outcome is virtually certain to occur with the defendant realising it.
FACTS: Defendant lost temper with a baby and threw it across the room, killing it.

Question 21

r v cunningham

Answer 21

AREA OF LAW: Mens Rea- Recklessness
POINT OF LAW: Defendant must realise the possible risk but still carries out his actions regardless
FACTS: Defendant ripped off gas metre which produced gas into the house killing an elderly women

Question 22

r v latimer

Answer 22

AREA OF LAW: Mens Rea- Transferred Malice
POINT OF LAW: Mens rea can be transferred
FACTS: Latimer intended to strike A but actually hit B, The mens rea was transferred from his intended victim to his actual victim

Question 23

thabo meli v r

Answer 23

AREA OF LAW: Mens rea- Contemporaneity rule
POINT OF LAW: Actus Reus and Mens Rea must occur together at some point
FACTS: Defendant hit victim knocking him out, def though he killed him and he disposed of the body but actually died later.

Question 24

r v fagan

Answer 24

AREA OF LAW: Mens rea- contemporaneity rule.
POINT OF LAW: Actus Reus and Mens Rea must occur together at some point.
FACTS: Defendant drives on police foot after a stop and refused to move.

Question 25

r v howells

Answer 25

AREA OF LAW: Actus Reus- Strict liability offence POINT OF LAW: Dont need the mens rea to be liable FACTS: Defendant brought revolver from antiques, which you dont need a licence for. It was a fake and required a licence. Guilty of possession of a firearm.

Question 26

callow v tillstone

Answer 26

AREA OF LAW: Actus Reus, Strict liability offences POINT OF LAW: No need to prove the mens rea FACTS: Defendant convicted of selling unfit meat.

Question 27

PSGB v Storkwain Ltd

Answer 27

AREA OF LAW: Actus Reus- Strict liability offence POINT OF LAW: Dont need to prove the mens rea FACTS: Pharmacist was found supplying drugs without a prescription, even though he was sure it was legal

Question 28

r v smith (house)

Answer 28

AREA OF LAW: Assault- section 39, CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: Assault can take place through a window FACTS: Defendant is homeless and trying to gain access to a shed, victim opens curtains, naked and screams.

Question 29

r v ireland 1

Answer 29

AREA OF LAW: Assault Section 29 CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: Words are sufficient enough for a guilty verdict FACTS: Defendant threatened to hurt victim if she didnt pass her purse over.

Question 30

r v Ireland 2

Answer 30

AREA OF LAW: Assault- Section 39- CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: Silent phone calls are sufficient. FACTS: Defendant ran women saying nothing, just heavy breathing.

Question 31

tuberville v savage

Answer 31

AREA OF LAW: Assault- Section 39. CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: If defendant says something which indicates no violence, then assault can be negated FACTS: Knight caught defendant stealing, he drew his sword and said if it wasnt ASIZE, he would cut his hands off.

Question 32

r v lamb

Answer 32

AREA OF LAW: Assault- Section 39- CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: We need mens rea to put the victim in fear. FACTS: Two kids playing with a revolver which resulted in a death.

Question 33

DPP v K

Answer 33

AREA OF LAW: Battery- Section 39, CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: Battery can be through an indirect act FACTS: Defendant out acid into a hair dryer which flew into victims face.

Question 34

r v haystead

Answer 34

AREA OF LAW: Battery, section 39, CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: Battery can be through an indirect act FACTS: Defendant got into a fight, drops baby on pavement causing it to hit the ground, This was indirect Battery

Question 35

r v santa-bermudez

Answer 35

AREA OF LAW: Battery, section 29- CJ 1988 POINT OF LAW: Omissions is sufficient for the Actus Reus of battery FACTS: Police stopped defendant for drug suspicion, he said no for carrying anything, officer got hurt when searching causing a bloody finger.

Question 36

collins v wilcock

Answer 36

AREA OF LAW: Battery, Section 39- CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: Any touching may be battery- and always if there was physical restraint FACTS: Officer held victims arms when asking for ID to prevent them walking away.

Question 37

r v thomas

Answer 37

AREA OF LAW: Battery, Section 39-CJA 1988 POINT OF LAW: Touching someone's clothes amounts to battery FACTS: Defendant touched girls skirt. If you touch someone's clothes whilst they wear them, that is exactly the same to touching them.

Question 38

criminal justice act 1988, section 39

Answer 38

ATTERY Applying unlawful force to another. AR- The actual application of applying force to another person. MR- Must be intentionally or subjectively reckless R v K R v Haystead R v Santa-Bermudez Collin v Wilcock R v Thomas ASSAULT Putting the victim in fear of apprehending immediate unlawful personal violence. AR- The act causing fear. MR- Must be intentionally or subjectively reckless R v Lamb R v Smith R v Ireland R v Ireland Tuberville v Savage

Question 39

T v DPP

Answer 39

AREA OF LAW: Actual Bodily Harm- Section 47, OAPA 1861 POINT OF LAW: Momentary unconsciousness is classed as ABH FACTS: Fight in a playground, defendant hit victim unconscious

Question 40

r v smith

Answer 40

AREA OF LAW: Actual Bodily Harm- Section 47, OAPA 1861 POINT OF LAW: ABH Does not have to be physical pain FACTS: Defendant cut his girlfriends hair off in an argument without her consent

Question 41

r v chan-fook

Answer 41

AREA OF LAW: Actual Bodily Harm- Section 47 OAPA 1861 POINT OF LAW: ABH can be a psychiatric consequence as long as it is a recognisable condition FACTS: The defendant locked victim in cupboard during a bulgary for a long time (24hours+) causing depression and other severe emotion.

Question 42

r v savage

Answer 42

AREA OF LAW: Actual Bodily Harm, Section 47- OAPA 47 POINT OF LAW: Does not need to intend or to seek injury FACTS: Women in pub threw pint other another women head, glass slipped causing the glass to cut the victims hand. Defendant only intended to throw the beer but is still liable for ABH.

Question 43

r v roberts

Answer 43

AREA OF LAW: Actual Bodily Harm, Section 47 OAPA 1861 POINT OF LAW: You do not need to intend any injury or realise there was a risk of injury FACTS: Victim jumped out of Defendants cars trying to refuse sexual advances.

Question 44

offences against the persons act 1861 - section 47

Answer 44

Assault or battery occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) AR- Any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim. T v DPP, R v Smith, R v Chan-Fook MR- Defendant must intend (Mohan) or subjectively recklessness (cunningham) as to whether the victims fear or is subjected to unlawful force. Doe not need to intend or be reckless for ABH. R v Savage, R v Roberts.

Question 45

r v burstow

Answer 45

AREA OF LAW: Section 20 OAPA 1861 AR POINT OF LAW: The word inflict simply means cause. GBH can be psychological FACTS: Defendant harassed women for over 8 months causing severe emotional trauma

Question 46

r v eisenhower

Answer 46

AREA OF LAW: Section 18 and 20 OAPA 1861 POINT OF LAW: a wound is a cut or break to the skin- internal bleeding is not suffiencent FACTS: Defendant fired an airrifle sticking victims faces and hitting their eye, causing bloodshot

Question 47

r v dica

Answer 47

AREA OF LAW: Section 20 & 18 OAPA 1861 (GBH) -AR POINT OF LAW: Grievously Bodily Harm can be biological FACTS: Defendant had unprotected sex with 2 women and did not inform them of his HIV

Question 48

r v golding

Answer 48

AREA OF LAW: Section 20 & 18 OAPA 1861 (GBH)- AR POINT OF LAW: GBH can be biological FACTS: Defendant infected victim with herpes causing GBH

Question 49

r v bollom

Answer 49

AREA OF LAW: Section 18 & 20 OAPA 1861 (GBH)- AR POINT OF LAW: Grievousness of harm could be relevant- age being taken into account FACTS: 17 month old baby had bad bruising and defendant convicted of GBH

Question 50

r v brown & stratton

Answer 50

AREA OF LAW: Section 18 & 20 OAPA 1861 (GBH)- AR POINT OF LAW: A collection of injuries could amount to GBH FACTS: Victim sustained broken nose, tooth loss, swelling, concussion and more from defendant.

Question 51

r v parmenter

Answer 51

AREA OF LAW: Section 20 OAPA 1861 MR POINT OF LAW: No need for defendant to foresee serious injury but must realise the risk of some injury FACTS: Defendant was rough with a child, throwing him in the air causing bruising.

Question 52

r v morrison

Answer 52

AREA OF LAW: Section 18 OAPA 1861 resist or preventing lawful apprehending of any person POINT OF LAW: Prosecution only needs to prove the defendant was reckless to cause injury FACTS: Defendant dragged police through window during arrest. apply cunningham and do not need to intend.

Question 53

offences against the persons at 1861 - section 20

Answer 53

Defendant inflicts GBH and/or wounding AR: Wounding- breaking two layers of skin (R v Eisenhower) GBH- serious harm (R v Dica, R v Golding, R v Bollom, R v Brown) MR: intent or reckless as to causing harm and no need to intend of foresee serious harm. (R v Parmeter)

Question 54

offences against the persons act 1961 - section 18

Answer 54

Defendant causes GBH with intent AR: Wounding- breaking two layers of skin (R v Eisenhower) GBH- serious harm (R v Dica, R v Golding, R v Bollom, R v Brown) MR: Causing GBH with intent (R v Mohan) Oblique- jury can infer (R v Woollin) Resist arrest: proving GBH with recklessness (R v Morrison)

Question 55

r v donovan

Answer 55

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: Defence of consent means actus reus is not present FACTS: Defendant caned women for sexual gratification. Later convicted of assault.

Question 56

r v brown

Answer 56

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: Consent is never available to sado-masochistic acts FACTS: Group of homosexuals found an abandoned warehouse to gain sexual gratification from pain.

Question 57

ag's ref no6

Answer 57

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: Consent is never available for street fighting FACTS: Street fight of a group with acts of section 47s and 20s

Question 58

wilson v pringle

Answer 58

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: consent is always allowed with consent due to everyday jostling FACTS: There was a sale and someone was pushed

Question 59

r v wilson

Answer 59

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: A tattoo is an exception FACTS: Defendant carved his initials into his wives backside with a knife during intercourse.

Question 60

r v jones

Answer 60

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: Exception to horseplay- being rough and undisciplined FACTS: 2 school boys were tossed into air by older youths for "birthday bumps" victims suffered broken arm and ruptured spleen.

Question 61

r v barnes

Answer 61

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: When people take part in playing an available organised contact sport, they are agreeing to consent to injury. FACTS: Defendant made a tackle on victim causing serious injury- section 20 was squashed

Question 62

r v slingsby

Answer 62

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: Must be an unlawful act FACTS: Sexual activity with vigorous activity- victim cut by sygnet ring which later caused blood poisoning and death.

Question 63

r v tabassum

Answer 63

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: There must be real consent FACTS: Measuring breasts for research- he was not a doctor.

Question 64

r v olugboja

Answer 64

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent POINT OF LAW: if the victim submits to the defendants conduct through fear then consent is not real. FACTS: Victim was raped by defendants companion and seen her friend raped by same man. Victim submitted to this through fear.

Question 65

r v burrell & harmer

Answer 65

AREA OF LAW: Defence of consent. POINT OF LAW: Victims must be of an age, capable to consenting or have the mental capacity to consent. FACTS: Two underaged boys got tattoos- consent was ineffective since they were unable to comprehend the nature of their act.

Question 66

r v hussain

Answer 66

AREA OF LAW: Defence of self defence. POINT OF LAW: Force must be necessary- if used after danger there is no defence FACTS: Defendant threatened by armed robbers- they left. Later, found one and beat them up.

Question 67

r v gladstone williams

Answer 67

AREA OF LAW: Self Defence POINT OF LAW: Force has to be necessary based on honest genuine belief FACTS: Defendant believed he saw a big man beating little man- jumped off bus and punches him. Big guy was an undercover officer.

Question 68

r v bird

Answer 68

AREA OF LAW: Self Defence POINT OF LAW: Person not under a duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose- Sec 76 (6A) CJIA 2008 FACTS: def hosted party, ex came, pinned, smashed glass, eye lost

Question 69

r v martins

Answer 69

AREA OF LAW: Self Defence POINT OF LAW: Jury must decide what is reasonable- Objective Test FACTS: Defendant shot two burgulars- one died.

Question 70

r v clegg

Answer 70

AREA OF LAW: Self defence POINT OF LAW: Force must be reasonable FACTS: D was a soldier at a checkpoint. Car involved in robbery raced past not stopping. He shot and killed a passanger.

Question 71

collins v Secretary of State

Answer 71

AREA OF LAW: Self Defence- Householder Case Section 76 (5A) POINT OF LAW: Jury has to decide if actions were reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be. FACTS: Husband put defendant in a headlock during a robbery. Defendant suffered from irreversible brain damage.

Question 72

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Section 76

Answer 72

SECTION 76: The degree of force must be reasonable and not disproportional/excessive (R v Martin) (R v Clegg) Doing what the person honestly thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose. SECTION 76 (3) Defendant is judged on the facts as he genuinely believed them to be (Williams)- no characteristics taken to account (Martins) SECTION 76 (5)(A) Householder case- degree of force must not be "grossly disproportionate" SECTION 76 (6)(A) Defendant is under no duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose.

Question 73

r v sheeran and moore

Answer 73

AREA OF LAW: Defence of Intoxication (Voluntary) POINT OF LAW: Voluntary intoxication only available to specific intent crimes, the mens rea must be negated FACTS: Defendants drunk, threw petrol over tramp and set fire to him. To drunk to have the intention-no mens rea- partial defence to murder

Question 74

r v gallagher

Answer 74

AREA OF LAW: Defence of Intoxication POINT OF LAW: If mens rea is present at any time, defence will fail. FACTS: Defendant killed his wife with a bread knife, planned it all before hand and drank for Dutch courage

Question 75

r v majewski

Answer 75

AREA OF LAW: Defence of Intoxication POINT OF LAW: Voluntary Intoxication is NEVER a defence to basic intent crimes FACTS: Defendant got drunk and high, decided to attack others in the pub and a police officer

Question 76

r v kingston

Answer 76

AREA OF LAW: Defence of Intoxication POINT OF LAW: Involuntary intoxication is a defence to ALL crimes but M/R must be NEGATED. FACTS: Defendant was a known paedophile and blackmailed. He and a boy got drugged and carried out acts. Defence raised but jury said due to his past, he was still guilty.

Question 77

r v hardie

Answer 77

AREA OF LAW: Defence of Intoxication POINT OF LAW: If calming drug has an opposite effect, than involuntary intoxication can be applied. FACTS: Defendant took Valium and it had an opposite effect, making him hyper and setting fire to his girlfriends wardrobe

Question 78

r v m'naughten

Answer 78

AREA OF LAW: Defence of insanity POINT OF LAW: Proving Insanity- 1) Defected reason 2) Disease of Man 3) No mens rea FACTS: D suffered from paranoia and killed a governments secretary

Question 79

r v clarke

Answer 79

AREA OF LAW: Defence of insanity POINT OF LAW: Defect of reason must be more than absent mindedness FACTS: D went into shop, stole things and blamed in on her diabetes and depression

Question 80

r v kemp

Answer 80

AREA OF LAW: Defence of insanity- Disease of Mind POINT OF LAW: Disease can be both mental and physical FACTS: Suffered from artery hardness, lost consciousness and attacked wife with hammer

Question 81

r v sullivan

Answer 81

AREA OF LAW: Defence of insanity- Disease of Mind POINT OF LAW: Epilepsy can be used as a defence FACTS: Fit with 80 y/o neighbour, injured him.

Question 82

r v burgess

Answer 82

AREA OF LAW: Defence of insanity- Disease of Mind POINT OF LAW: sleep working is within the legal defence of insanity FACTS: D hit gf with recorder and killed her, he did not remember.

Question 83

r v coley

Answer 83

AREA OF LAW: Defence of insanity- Disease of Mind POINT OF LAW: voluntary intoxication cannot be used for the defence of insanity FACTS: 17 y/o defendant high on cannabis, watched violent videos and stabbed neighbour

Question 84

r v quick

Answer 84

AREA OF LAW: Defence of failed insanity POINT OF LAW: Hypoglycemia- low blood sugar- took EXTERNAL insulin = defence of automatism FACTS: Defendant was a diabetic, took insulin but still fell unconscious and assaulted a patient.

Question 85

r v hennessy

Answer 85

AREA OF LAW: Defence of Insanity POINT OF LAW: Hyperglycaemia- high blood sugar- no insulin- body took over= insantity FACTS: D did not take insulin for three days, and took a stolen car, he claimed not to remember.

Question 86

r v windle

Answer 86

AREA OF LAW: Defence of Insanity POINT OF LAW: Defendant must not know the nature of his act or not know it was LEGALLY wrong FACTS: Defendants wife suffered from mental illness and wanted to commit suicide. D also suffered from illness and gave his wife 100 aspirin, she died and said to the police- "I suppose they will hang me for this"

Question 87

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland

Answer 87

AREA OF LAW: Defence of automatism POINT OF LAW: Automatism if the act done by the muscle without any control of the mind. FACTS: Defendant strangled women, dumped body- he suffered a form of epilepsy triggered by external factors- he was not aware of his actions

Question 88

r v t

Answer 88

AREA OF LAW: Defence of insane automatism POINT OF LAW: Exceptional stress can be an external factor (PTSD) FACTS: Defendant attacked someone and was charged with a section 20

Question 89

ag's ref no2

Answer 89

AREA OF LAW: Defence of non insane automatism POINT OF LAW: Reduced control is not sufficient for complete loss of control FACTS: Lorry driver crashed into car, killing two.

Question 90

r v bailey

Answer 90

AREA OF LAW: defence of self induced automatism POINT OF LAW: Reckless automatism is only a defence to specific intent crimes of the mens rea is negated. FACTS: D was a known diabetic, hitting ex with an iron bar, the attack was premeditated.

Question 91

ag's ref no3

Answer 91

AREA OF LAW: Murder- foetus POINT OF LAW: Foetus is not a reasonable being unless it takes its first breath FACTS: D stabbed pregnant girlfriend and went into premature labour, baby died 121 not guilty of killing it.

Question 92

r v vickers

Answer 92

AREA OF LAW: Murder- malice aforethought POINT OF LAW: The intention to cause serious harm is enough for a conviction of Murder FACTS: D broke into sweet shop and viciously beat up old lady when she confronted him

Question 93

r v bryne

Answer 93

AREA OF LAW: Abnormality of the mind section 52(1) POINT OF LAW: a state of mind so different from that of a reasonable person FACTS: S strangled mutilated women's bodies. He was unable to control his perverted mind.

Question 94

r v smith

Answer 94

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility- Sc 52 (1)(a) recognised medical condition POINT OF LAW: PMT is a recognised medical condition FACTS: D stabbed barmaid to death.

Question 95

r v alwuilia

Answer 95

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility- Sc 52 (1)(a) recognised medical condition POINT OF LAW: Battered wife children is a recognised medical condition FACTS: Husband abused wife, wife set fire to husband and killed him.

Question 96

r v gittens

Answer 96

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility- Sc 52 (1)(a) recognised medical condition POINT OF LAW: severe depression is a recognised medical condition FACTS: D Killed and raped wife and kid.

Question 97

r v vinagre

Answer 97

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility- Sc 52 (1)(a) recognised medical condition POINT OF LAW: Jealousy is a recognised medical condition FACTS: D killed his wife as he believed she was cheating

Question 98

r v miller

Answer 98

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility- Sc 52 (1)(a) recognised medical condition POINT OF LAW: Othello syndrome is a recognised medical condition FACTS: D killed husband and his secretary as she believed they were having an affair

Question 99

r v lloyd

Answer 99

AREA OF LAW: DR Sc 52 (1) (b) must substantially be impaired POINT OF LAW: substantial does not mean total nor trivial or minimal- for jury to decide FACTS: D strangled his wife- his mentality caused impairment

Question 100

r v gold

Answer 100

AREA OF LAW: DR Sc 52 (1) (b) must substantially be impaired POINT OF LAW: substantial does not mean total nor trivial or minimal- for jury to decide FACTS: D killed his wife due to a psychotic state

Question 101

r v dietschmann

Answer 101

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility POINT OF LAW: Jury should disregard intoxication and decide whether abnormality of mind substantially impaired Defendants abilities FACTS: V disrespected D aunt, D stamped on him after drinking whisky and cider. Killing V

Question 102

r v dowds

Answer 102

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility POINT OF LAW: Transient effect must be disregarded FACTS: D killed wife with a knife but reported it two days later, he was drunk and claimed to have no recollition

Question 103

r v woods

Answer 103

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility POINT OF LAW: Jury must consider if ADS caused abnormality, if yes was D responsible impaired. FACTS: Chronic alcoholic who killed a gay man with a meat cleaver and hammer.

Question 104

r v inseal

Answer 104

AREA OF LAW: Diminished Responsibility POINT OF LAW: If intoxication caused disease then DR can be raised. FACTS: D strangled gf in bed, he suffered from ADS which was abnormality of mind.

Question 105

r v stewart

Answer 105

AREA OF LAW: Diminished responsibility POINT OF LAW: was d suffering from mental functioning, if yes was it caused by ADS, if yes, was d responsibility impaired FACTS: D chronic alcoholic, entered a fight and killed a man.

Question 106

r v jewell

Answer 106

AREA OF LAW: loss of control Sec 54 (2) POINT OF LAW: Temper or anger or a reaction out of character is not sufficient to raise the defence of Loss of Control FACTS: D shot V at point blank range- loss of control was raised and failed because he fled the scene which suggested he knew what he was doing.

Question 107

r v ibrams & gregory

Answer 107

AREA OF LAW: Loss of control Sec 54 (2) POINT OF LAW: There can be a time lapse but threat must still be hanging FACTS: Ibram and gf shared a flat. Ex bf was terrorising them, they planned to attack him and did it two days later

Question 108

r v ward

Answer 108

AREA OF LAW: Loss of Control Sec 55 (3) POINT OF LAW: Fear of violence on another person is sufficient. FACTS: V was attacking Ds brother and and killed victim with a pickaxe

Question 109

r v dawes

Answer 109

AREA OF LAW: Loss of control- fear of violence POINT OF LAW: If D has indicated violence, they cannot rely on it being a qualifying trigger FACTS: D found V on sofa with another man and stabbed him

Question 110

r v hatter

Answer 110

AREA OF LAW: Loss of control Sec 55(4) POINT OF LAW: Things said or done- sense of being seriously wronged must be justifiable FACTS: D stabbed V because she broke up with him and started a new relationship.

Question 111

r v zebedee

Answer 111

AREA OF LAW: Loss of control Sec 55(4) POINT OF LAW: Things done or said must constitute circumstances of extremely grave character- Must be directed at defendant FACTS: D loss control with his father who had dementia and killed him because he couldn't care from him any more

Question 112

r v bowyer

Answer 112

AREA OF LAW: Loss of control Sec 55(4) POINT OF LAW: Things done or said must constitute circumstances of extremely grave character or sense of being seriously wronged. FACTS: Women was a prostitute and had a pimp (V). D loss his control and killed the pimp because he found the prozzy (his gf) with the pimp.

Question 113

r v clinton

Answer 113

AREA OF LAW: Loss of Control Sec 55(6)(c) POINT OF LAW: Sexual infidelity alone cannot amount to a qualifying trigger FACTS: D suffered from depression. His wife was leaving him, having an affair, and taunting him. D killed wife two days later.

Question 114

r v mohammed

Answer 114

AREA OF LAW: Loss of control- Objective test Sec 54(1)(c) POINT OF LAW: Test is compared to a person of the same sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance- hot tempered not taken into account. FACTS: D killed his daughter because he found her with a boy in her bed. Said he did it because of religious beliefs

Question 115

r v asmelash

Answer 115

AREA OF LAW: Loss of control- Objective test Sec 54(1)(c) POINT OF LAW: Intoxication will disregard defence FACTS: D and V spent whole day drinking, got home, got in a fight and D killed V.

Question 116

r v lamb

Answer 116

AREA OF LAW: Unlawful Act Manslaughter POINT OF LAW: Element 1- Must be an unlawful act. FACTS: Two kids playing with a revolver, one shot another on accident.

Question 117

r v franklin