Part 3 - Offences Which Threaten or Harm Bodily Integrity

Question 1

Drury v HM Advocate

Answer 1

Claw hammer.
Wicked intent to kill.
Leading provocation case.
Murder should not be death with intention to kill, it should be wicked intent to kill. Intention isn’t always murder (self-defence - intent to kill but not wicked).
Drury’s ex-girlfriend whom he was still having a sexual relationship with, but had an interdict from the courts from, had sex with someone else so he hit her over the head with a claw hammer after he saw another man running out of house tucking in his shirt. Murder or culpable homicide? Adultery could plead provocation. Expectation of sexual fidelity did not apply here.

Question 2

HM Advocate v Purcell

Answer 2

Driving through lights.
Wicked recklessness.
Recklessly drove through red lights. Boy was crossing road and killed him. He was driving recklessly and indifferent to the consequences. He didn’t assault the boy and had no intention to kill him.

Question 3

Petto v HM Advocate

Answer 3

Foresight of consequences = intent to kill.

Question 4

Tomney v HM Advocate

Answer 4

Possession of gun.
Lawful act involuntary culpable homicide.
Lawfully possessed gun and was playing with it. He killed one of his friends. Wasn’t indifferent to his friends death but was negligent. It was almost an accident but the high degree of negligence meant it was an offence.

Question 5

Transco Plc v HM Advocate (No1)

Answer 5

Gas company.
Charge of culpable homicide against a company.
Supplied gas to peoples houses. Were charged with culpable homicide after gas explosion. They allowed the pipes to get corroded. A family smelt gas and the company ruled their wasn’t a problem. The family all died due to explosion. This was the first case that charged a company with homicide.

Question 6

John Roy

Answer 6

Broken window.
Not a deliberate act.
Broke a window a girl was under. She got glass in her eye, injuring her. He did not know she was there so was not a deliberate attack.

Question 7

Smart v HM Advocate

Answer 7

Square go.
Consent is not a defence - boxing and surgery are not assault by public policy.
Consented to having a square go. There were no weapons but one was injured. Even though both consented it did not allow an acquittal or assault. The exceptions to assault are boxing and surgery by public policy.

Question 8

R v Brown

Answer 8

Weird sex
Sado-masachism.
Police found video of someone dying as a result. Consent to engage in the sexual act doesn’t matter. Does not acquit murder.

Question 9

Kirkup v HM Advocate

Answer 9

Intent and evil intent.

Question 10

HM Advocate v Harris

Answer 10

Assault requires intent, but causing real injury by reckless conduct is a crime not aiming but committing action that could risk doing something in-deliberate and reckless.