Part 2 - Foundations of Criminal Law Flashcards
(16 cards)
Hogg v MacPherson
Horse-drawn carriage.
No voluntary act.
Wind blew carriage over which knocked over lampost. At the time, there was an Act to repair broken council property. The accused refused to pay and so was prosecuted. Appealed the case and was found not to be liable as it was not a voluntary act
R v White
Mother and son.
No causal link.
Accused to tried to murder mother by poisoning her. his attempt was unsuccessful but the accused’s mother died anyway by an unrelated heart attack. As no causal link could be found between the poisoning and death the accused was charged with attempted murder
HM Advocate v Kerr & Others
Rape in country lane.
No liability for omissions.
Group of boys raped a girl in country lane. Boy ‘Donald’ was there but did not participate but didn’t intervene. Was acquitted as what not under duty to act.
Quinn v Lees
Dog attack.
Joke motive.
Set his dog on 3 boys ‘as a joke’. The dogs assaulted the boys. He hadn’t intended to hurt them but ‘joke’ motive doesn’t impact the mens rea.
Paton v HM Advocate
Driving offence.
Recklessness.
Drove recklessly (indifferent to the consequences) and with excessive speed. Killed one and injured another. Charged with culpable homicide.
Thabo Meli v R
Murder off cliff.
Conduct treated as a continuous act.
Assaulted somebody and thought they killed him so threw body off cliff. He died from exposure from lying at the bottom of the cliff, not the beating. Argued that he didn’t have intent to kill him at the time he died. Court rejected argument, holding sequence of events was single transaction.
Roberts v Hamilton
Pool cue.
Transferred intent.
Accused intended to assault A but accidentally hit boyfriend. In legal theory had technically assaulted both. Transfers intent to assault boyfriend even though she didn’t intent to assault boyfriend. Was charged with assault as assault cannot be committed recklessly.
HM Advocate v Robertson and Donoghue
Shop owner, weak heart.
Thin skull rule.
R and D assaulted shop owner, Mr Demarco by shaking him. However, Demarco had a weak heart so died as a result of this assault. Causation was shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, R and D were found guilty for unlawful act involuntary culpable homicide
McDonald v HM Advocate
Flat window.
Victims contribution.
Man was assaulted in 3rd floor flat and locked in. 30 minutes after the attacker left, the victim attempted to escape out of a window. The ledge broke causing him to fall to his death. He was a drug addict and on amphetamines (later deemed to be irrelevant as take victim as you find them). The accused was initially found guilty of culpable homicide however, they appealed. Court held that victims actions were unreasonable and broke the chain of causation. ‘But for’ test wasn’t enough.
HM Advocate v Fraser & Rollins
Vulnerable lady.
Each accused is liable for ultimate actus reus.
Lady would pretend to be vulnerable in park and lure victim to associates who would rob them. However, with one victim they accidentally killed them. In normal circumstances, Mrs White likely would have been found guilty of murder too as she was part of the common plan despite having no involvement in assault, however, she gave evidence against the accuse to wasn’t charged.
HM Advocate v Gallacher
Circus.
Spontaneous coming together.
Assaulted someone who they thought was in the circus. No prior plan common plan but a spontaneous coming together constitutes Art and Part liability. The victim was not part of the circus either so also error but same mens rea of intent.
Boyne v HM Advocate
Robbery with knife.
Step outside the common plan.
Number of people involved in assault and robbery. During attack, one of accused pulled out a knife, stabbed victim and killed him. There would be Art and Part liability if the others had continued the assault or if they had known about the knife. There was no common plan so each were liable for their own actions.
HM Advocate v Camerons
Pearl necklace case.
preparation to perpetration.
Faked robbery of pearl necklace as part of insurance scam. Sent telegraph to say necklace has been stolen but did not file insurance claim. Therefore, there was no perpetration so were charged with attempted fraud.
Docherty v Brown
Supplying ecstasy.
Impossible attempts.
Charged with possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply. He believed he had ecstasy - turns out it wasn’t. How could he be guilty of selling and possessing drugs if there were none? Court ruled he could be charged with intent to supply.
West v HM Advocate
Bank robbery.
Loitering suspiciously with weapons.
Baxter v HM Advocate
Tenement flat hallway.
It is enough that the accused is serious.
Accused lived in tenement flat. All tenants agreed that they wanted hallway redecorated accept one. Accused wanted him dead so asked someone to kill him. They offered £5,000. There was no further discussion beyond that. Accused argued that there was no consensus in idem but contractual approach cannot be taken. As he was serious he was guilty of incitement.
