Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
230 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Bratty v AG of NI (1963)
|
actus reus - no act is punishable if done involuntarily
|
|
|
Mitchell (1983)
|
actus reus/transferred malice - D pushed by a bystander and falls into V who falls and breaks leg - it is the one who pushed who is liable
|
|
|
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2003)
|
crime by omission/ indirect assault - D failed to disclose needles in pockets - PO was cut when searching him
|
|
|
Khan and Khan (1998)
|
actus reus - duty to act? D supplied drugs to prostitute - she slipped into coma - took no action - no duty - not liable
|
|
|
Pittwood 1902
|
actus reus - duty to act? duty arising from contractual liability - signalman at railway crossing
|
|
|
Nicholls 1874
|
duty arising from relationship - D took granddaughter into her care - duty to act
|
|
|
Instan 1893
|
duty arising from relationship - D moved in with aunt - duty owed when aunt got sick - guilty
|
|
|
Gibbons and Proctor
|
duty arising from relationship - father's lover moved in - 7 year old daughter neglected and died - both adults convicted
|
|
|
Stone and Dobinson 1977
|
duty arising from relationship - S lived with mistress D, S's sister came to live with them, very ill, condition deteriorated, neglected by S and D - died - S and D convicted
|
|
|
Miller 1983
|
duty arising from creation of a dangerous situation - squatter woke up to mattress on fire - moved to other room - took no action to minimise damage - liable
|
|
|
Matthews and Alleyne 2003
|
duty arising from creation of dangerous situation - D and E pushed V into river - took no steps to rescue him
|
|
|
Evans 2009
|
duty arising from creation of a dangerous situation - D bought heroin for 16year old half sister - collapsed - D and mother sought no medical attention - died - both liable
gross negligence manslaughter |
|
|
White 1910
|
causation - factual causation - 'but for' test - D poisoned mothers drink but she died of heart attack rather than the poison - only convicted of attempted murder
|
|
|
Dolloway 1847
|
causation - legal causation - can fairly be said to be D's fault? - ran over V with horse and cart - not holding reins but wouldnt have been able to stop anyway - not guilty
|
|
|
Marchant and Muntz
|
causation - legal causation - farm vehicle with spike - motorcyclist impaled - allowed on road and even if covered up would have caused injury- not D's fault
|
|
|
Kimsey 1996
|
causation - minimal causes discounted - must be 'more than a slight or trifling link'
|
|
|
Benge 1865
|
causation - acts of third parties - misread railway timetable - if D's conduct was a substantial cause of crash - to be convicted
|
|
|
Pagett
|
causation - acts of third parties - where the third party's act is a reasonable response to D's intitial act the chain will not be broken - human shield
|
|
|
Dalby 1982/ Dias 2002/ Kennedy 2007
|
actions of the victim - deliberate acts - if supply drugs and V self injects - D not liable
|
|
|
Marjoram 2000
|
actions of victim - fright or flight - D banging aggressively on door - V jumps out window - D liable for assault
|
|
|
Corbett 1996
|
actions of victim - fright or flight - D headbutted and punched V - V ran away and got ranover - D liable
|
|
|
Roberts 1972
|
actions of victim - escape - alleged sexual assault on V in car - jumped out - D liable for injuries
|
|
|
Williams and Davis 1992
|
D and E gave lift to hitchhiker - jumped out of car as they allegedly try to rob him - within range of reasonable responses - liable
|
|
|
Martin 1832
|
accused must take victim as they find them - V in bad health - immaterial if D was so unfortunate as to accelerate her death - must answer for it
|
|
|
Towers 1874
|
take victim as you find them - D may frighten a child V to death - particularly susceptible to shock
|
|
|
Hayward 1908
|
take victim as find them - possible to frighten an adult to death - if some pre-existing medical condition triggered by illegal conduct
|
|
|
Blaue 1975
|
take victim as you find them - jehovahs witness refused blodd transfusion - died
|
|
|
Wall 1802
|
actions of victim - self neglect - wont break chain - V got 800 lashes - exasperated injuris by drinking - D remained liable for murder
|
|
|
Holland 1841
|
actions of victim - self neglect - D cut V on finger, V ignored medical advice - died - D convicted
|
|
|
Dear 1996
|
actions of victim - self neglect - D slashed V with knife - claimed V had deliberately reopened wounds - D convicted of murder
|
|
|
Adams 1957
|
medical treatment - palliative care - if reduce life by even weeks can be as much murder as years BUT need to consider reasonable pain relief when restoration no longer an option
|
|
|
Smith 1959
|
negligent medical treatment - break chain of causation? D stabbed V - on route to hospital he was dropped then at hospital doctors fail to recognise and treat him properly - died BUT Smith's action remained 'operating and substantial' cause
|
|
|
Cheshire 1991
|
causation - negligent medical treatment - could D's act still be said to have 'contributed significantly'
|
|
|
Jordan 1956
|
causation - negligent medical treatment - must be 'palpably wrong' to break chain - given antibiotics previously shown allergic reaction to
|
|
|
Woolin 1998
|
mens rea - indirect intention - forseen consequence - D killed 3 month son - threw against wall - claimed towards pram - intention established if when he threw child he appreciated there was a virtual certainty of harm
|
|
|
Matthews and Alleyne 2003
|
mens rea - indirect intention - D and E pushed V into river - knew couldnt swim - foresight is not intention but can provide evidence of intention
|
|
|
Cunningham 1957
|
mens rea - recklessness - subjective test - Did D forsee risk? D ripped gas meter off wall for the money - didnt contemplate gas leak and harm to person
|
|
|
G and Another 2003
|
mens rea - recklessness is a subjective test - would a child of same age have forseen the risk? - genuinely didnt realise the risk
|
|
|
Andrews v DPP 1937
|
negligence - very high degree needed before a crime established
|
|
|
Ghosh 1982
|
dishonesty - subjective and objective test - 1. whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest
2. if ‘no’ → end of matter, if ‘yes’ → must consider whether D realized what he was doing was by those standards considered dishonest |
|
|
Latimer 1886
|
transferred malice - D tried to hit V with belt - got W instead - D liable
|
|
|
AG Ref (No3 of 1994)
|
transferred malice - D stabbed pregnant wife - baby premature and died - D could not be held guilty of manslaughter of someone not in existence at time
|
|
|
Pemliton 1874
|
transferred malice - generally speaking if D has mens rea of one crime but does act which causes actus reus of some different crime - cannot generally speaking be convicted of either crime - D threw stones into brawl - aim at persons but smashed window - could not be liable for criminal damage
|
|
|
Fagan v Met Police Commissioner 1969
|
coincidence of actus reus and mens rea - must be at same time BUT continuing act - sufficient to form mens rea at some point during - policemans foot
|
|
|
Church 1965
|
coincidence of actus reus and mens rea - must be at same time BUT continuing act - sufficient to form mens rea at some point during - D knocked woman unconscious - thought V wasdead - threw in river - drowned - manslaughter as had intended to cause GBH/death when struck blow
|
|
|
Maloney 1985
|
homicide - mens rea - malice aforethought - if 1)intended to kill (express malice) or 2) intended to cause GBH (implied malice)
|
|
|
Campbell 1997
|
homicide - voluntary manslaughter - Diminished responsibility - not a defence to attempted murder
|
|
|
Hobson 1998
|
voluntary manslaughter - DR - if medical condition not recognised at time of conviction but later becomes recognised - conviction may be quashed
|
|
|
Byrne
|
voluntary manslaughter - DR - abnormality of mental functioning = 'a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal'
|
|
|
Gittens 1984
|
voluntary manslaughter - DR and intoxication - depression and alcohol led to murder and rape - would D have had an abnormality of mind even if not drunk and would this have been enough to lead him to commit acts
|
|
|
Wood 2008
|
voluntary manslaughter - DR and alcoholism - can be abnormality of mind - matter for jury - not essential to have suffered brain damage - was mental responsibility substantially impaired?
|
|
|
Pearson 1992
|
voluntary manslaughter - loss of self control - trigger 1: fear of serious violence against D or another - 2 brothers killed violent father - he had abused M and W - M suffered most as still at home whereas W had moved out - W initially convicted of murder but reduced to manslaughter - have to take account of effect on W of father's treatment on M, even when he had been away
|
|
|
DPP v Camplin 1978
|
voluntary manslaughter - loss of self control - trigger 2 - things said or done - circumstances of grave character - caused D to have justifiable sense of being wronged - V raped D then laughed at her afterwards
normal person test - D's reaction to be tested against self control of ordinary person of same age and sex |
|
|
Clarke
|
voluntary manslaughter - loss of self control - ordinary person of same age and sex must have also gone to same extent as D - ordinary person would not have head butted, strangled and electrocuted his gf
|
|
|
Van Donegan 2005
|
voluntary manslaughter - loss of self control - ordinary person must have gone to extent that D did - ordinary person would not repeatedly kick V about the head when lying curled up on pavement
|
|
|
Lamb 1967
|
involuntary manslaughter - constructive manslaughter - act must be unlawful - shot gun at friend - did not understand the gun - thought would shoot a blank - V didnt apprehend harm - act not unlawful
|
|
|
Andrews 2002
|
involuntary manslaughter - constructive manslaughter - no mens rea requirement for offence under Medicines act - administered insulin without being qualified - unlawful act
|
|
|
Church 1965
|
involuntary manslaughter - constructive manslaughter - dangerousness - bystander must recognise act as being dangerous
|
|
|
Ball 1989
|
involuntary manslaughter - constructive manslaughter - dangerousness - shot at neighbour but thought were blanks - manslaughter not murder - bystander would have perceived act as dangerous and not have made the mistake
|
|
|
Dawson 1985
|
involuntary manslaughter - constructive manslaughter - dangerousness - D carried out armed robbery - V had existing heart condition - heart attack - not manslaughter as bystander would not have known of condition BUT Blaue ? take victim as find them?
|
|
|
Carey and Others
|
involuntary manslaughter - constructive manslaughter - dangerousness - D punched 15 year old girl - she ran away and as she did they threatened her - dies of undiagnosed heart condition - their violent and dangerous act did not cause death - the subsequent threats not dangerous enough to contemplate outcome
|
|
|
DPP v Newbury and Jones 1977
|
involuntary manslaughter - constructive manslaughter - harm - must be proved that D intended to commit unlawful act but no requirement that D foresaw that his act may cause death or even harm
|
|
|
Goodfellow 1986
|
involuntary manslaughter - constructive manslaughter - man set fire to house hoping to be rehomed - wife and children died
|
|
|
Adomako 1995
|
involuntary manslaughter - gross negligence manslaughter - D was an anaesthetist - failed to see disconnected tube - abysmal failure
Elements that form gross neg manslaughter - duty of care, breach of that duty causing death, gross negligence |
|
|
Litchfield 1998
|
involuntary manslaughter - gross negligence manslaughter -D sailed on when knew enhines might fail - crashed - 3 out of 14 crew killed - breach of duty serious enough to be gross negligence
|
|
|
Wacker 2003
|
involuntary manslaughter - gross negligence - 58 illegal immigrants in lorry - closed only ventilation - did not intend to - 58 died - guilty
|
|
|
Doherty 1887
|
involuntary manslaughter - gross negligence - 'culpable negligence of a grave kind'
|
|
|
Bateman 1925
|
involuntary manslaughter - gross neligence - negligence went far beyond a mere matter of compensation - disregard for safety and life of others - crime deservant of punishment
|
|
|
Lidar 2000
|
involuntary manslaughter - reckless manslaughter - D drives off with man hanging out window - disregard as to whether harm will occur
|
|
|
Ikram & Parveen 2008
|
causing or allowing the death of a child/vulnerable adult - D and E lived with 16 month old son - one morning found dead in cot - couldnt conclude who responsible - both convicted under s5
|
|
|
Mujuru 2007
|
causing or allowing the death of a child/vulnerable adult - D left baby with partner knowing he was violent - he killed V - D convicted under s5
|
|
|
Khan and others 2009
|
causing or allowing the death of a child/vulnerable adult - V aged 19 was killed by husband - lived with his 2 sisters and brother in law - they were convicted under s5 for allowing the death - previous attacks had left V vulnerable
|
|
|
Collins v Wilcock 1984
|
assault/battery - s39 CJA
assault - act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force on his person battery - the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person |
|
|
Constanza 1997
|
assault - letters can constitute an assault - threatening
|
|
|
Ireland 1997
|
assault - silent phone calls could constitute assault - it all depends on the facts
|
|
|
Lamb 1967
|
assault - pointing unloaded gun at someone when they know it is unloaded can not be assault
|
|
|
Smith v Chief Superintendant of WOking Police station (1983)
|
assault - immediate does not mean instantaneous but imminent - D got into garden of V, V saw through window and feared what might happen
|
|
|
Tuberville v Savage 1669
|
assault - words to contrary of assult can negate it - hand on sword and stated if it were not assizetime i would not take such language from you
|
|
|
Light 1857
|
assault - words can negate assault BUT not in this instance - raised sword and said if it wasnt for the police outside i would split your head open - raising sword was enough to fear harm
|
|
|
Martin 1881
|
Battery - indirect assault - booby trap - D placed bar across doorway of theatre then switched lights off - several audience members injured - s20 OAPA
|
|
|
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire (2000)
|
battery - indirect act - D caused child to fall from woman's arms by punching woman - reckless to consequences
|
|
|
Wilson v Pringle 1986
|
battery - consent - we consent to everyday touchings/ if we participate in contact sports
|
|
|
Miller 1954
|
s47 - actual bodily harm is 'any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health/comfort of the victim
|
|
|
R(T) v DPP
|
s47 - loss of consciousness, even momentarily held to be ABH
|
|
|
DPP v Smith (Michael)2006
|
s47 - ABH - cutting hair can suffice - physical pain not necessary
|
|
|
Burstow 1997
|
s47 - ABH - only recognised psychiatric illnesses
|
|
|
Savage 1991
|
s47 - mens rea - intend or be subjectively reckless as to whether the victim fears or is subject to unlawful force - woman in pub thew beer over other woman, glass slipped and v's hand cut by the glass - s47 conviction as she had intended to throw the beer which constituted unlawful force
|
|
|
Donovan 1934
|
s47 - consent - an unlawful act cannot be rendered lawful because the V consents to it - cant license another person to commit a crime
|
|
|
Jones 1986
|
Offences against the person - mistaken belief in consent can be defence to assault - 2 schoolboys thrown in air - claimed believed Vs consented even though clear they did not - rough horseplay
|
|
|
DPP v Smith 1961
|
s20 - GBH - 'really serious harm' but need not be life threatening
|
|
|
Parmenter 1992
|
s20 - mens rea - need not foresee degree of harm - D injured 3 month old baby by throwing it in air and catching it - had often done with older children - D does not need to be aware that act may cause harm of gravity described in section
|
|
|
Ismail 2005
|
sexual offences - mouth can be rape - D made V give him a blowy or he would stab her - slapped her and punched her - rape
|
|
|
Kaitamaki 1984
|
rape - penetration is continuing act - consent can be withdrawn mid sex and if D fails to withdraw - rape
|
|
|
Olugboja 1982
|
rape - consent - use of force not always a requirement - 16 year old did not put up resistance as she was too scared - NOT CONSENT
|
|
|
McFall 1994
|
rape - consent - D kidnapped former gf at gunpoint and drove to hotel - had sex - gf pretended to consent - scared - NOT CONSENT
|
|
|
Jheeta 2007
|
rape - consent - must be true - V had ended relationship with D - he sent anonomous text messages threatening her, she engaged back in relationship for protection reasons only - for years - had sex - rape - sex not a free choice
|
|
|
Larter and Castleton 1995
|
rape - consent - evidential presumption - if V asleep - D slept with 14 year old sleeping girl - V does not need to actively dissent
|
|
|
Malone 1998
|
rape - consent - evidential presumptions - if voluntarily intoxicated but D takes advantage - can still be rape - neighbour helped 16 year old girl to bed when she was veryyyy drunk - climbed on top of her - V could not get him off
|
|
|
Bree 2007
|
rape - consent - drunken consent is still consent - V claimed drifing in and out of consciousness, D claimed V was drunk but consenting throughout - D not convicted - who do jury believe?
|
|
|
Flattery 1877
|
rape - through fraud/deception
V had sex with D under impression it was a surgical operation which would cure her fits - rape |
|
|
Williams 1923
|
rape - fraud/deception
V, 16 year old girl, had sex with D, her choir master, - thought she was performing exercises to improve breathing technique - did not know having sex - rape |
|
|
Linekar 1995
|
rape - fraud/deception - not rape if decieve about professional status/ wealth - D had sex with prostitute after agreeing to pay £25 - made off without paying - V claimed rape as consent vitiated by D's fraud - conviction quashed - absence of consent not the presence of fraud which makes otherwise unlawful sex rape
|
|
|
Elbekkay 1995
|
rape - consent through impersonation - D impersonated V's boyfriend - rape
|
|
|
Fotheringham 1989
|
rape - lack of reasonable belief in consent - no longer enough to 'honestly' believe - must be reasonable - jumped into bed when drunk and had sex with babysitter without consent - thought it was his wife - rape
|
|
|
Corran + Others 2005
|
rape and other offences against children under 13 - cannot say you thought they were older - strict liability - D aged 20 conned by 12 year old V who hung out with 16year olds that she was 16 - convicted
|
|
|
G(2008)
|
rape and other offences against children under 13 - defence simple has to prove that D intended to have sex
|
|
|
Corcoran v Anderton 1980
|
theft - appropriation - 2 youths tried to pull handbag from V, did not actually take it but still amounted to appropriation
|
|
|
Morris 1983
|
theft - appropriation - dont need to assume all the rights of the owner - switched price labels - arrested before checkout - assuming rights of owner
|
|
|
Atakpu and Abhrahams 1994
|
theft - appropriation - is at time of intentionally depriving - not dealings afterwards - Ds hired cars with no intention of returning - arrested at dover but could not be convicted as appropriation occurred outside the jurisdiction of English courts
|
|
|
Lawrence 1972
|
theft - consent to appropriation - taxi driver told foreign V that taxi ride cost considerable amount more than in reality - V offered up the money - D claimed consent - rejected
|
|
|
Dobson v General Accident fire and life insurance corp 1990
|
theft - consent to appropriation - insurance company refused to pay out when DObson had handed over jewellery to D who paid im with stolen cheque - BUT C of A ruled this was theft
|
|
|
Gomez 1993
|
theft - consent to appropriation - assistant manager persuaded manager to accept cheques as payment - Gomez knew cheques were stolen and of no value - Gomez guilty of theft - false representation
|
|
|
Hinks 2000
|
theft - consent without deception - Hinks befriended a man of low IQ - he gave her 60,000 - not theft as it was a gift - although some argue that should look at whether ordinary/ decent people would have accepted
|
|
|
Wheeler 1990
|
theft - protection of innocent purchasers - D purchased antiques - did not know were stolen - agreed to sell them to a buyer - but before buyer came to pay police had told D that they were stolen - could not be guilty of theft for keeping/selling them
|
|
|
Kelly and Lindsay 1998
|
theft - property - personal property - moveable items - body parts were included as they had obtained a different nature by being for research
|
|
|
Turner No2 1971
|
theft - able to steal own property - left car in garage for repairs - car under control and possession of garage - turner used spare keys to drive car away at night without paying charge - guilty of stealing own car
|
|
|
Meredith 1973
|
theft - able to steal own property? police impounded D's car - he removed it without paying charge - not guilty of theft - police could only enforce charge against D
|
|
|
Hall 1972
|
theft - if D given money under an obligation to treat it in certain way -if fail to do so --> guilty of theft - travel egent took deposits but didnt use it to book tickets etc - couldnt return the money - but not guilty of theft as had not been required to deal with money in specified way
|
|
|
Klineberg and Marsden 1999
|
theft - clear obligation to deal with money in certain way - given money for time shares - theft when did not use in this way
|
|
|
Davidge v Bunnet 1984
|
theft - obligation to deal with property in certain way - D given money by flatmates to pay bills - spent it on christmas presents - theft
|
|
|
Wain 1995
|
theft - charity money - required to hand over the direct cash or the equivalent
|
|
|
AG Ref (No1 1983)
|
theft - property got by mistake - obligation to restore - D overpaid by £74.74
|
|
|
Gilks 1972
|
theft - property got by mistake - must be a legal obligation to restore - D placed bet - bookmaker mistakenly overpaid D - D didnt return the money - betting transactions are not enforceable at law
|
|
|
Small 1987
|
theft - not dishonest if believe owner cannot reasonable be found - D took car thought was abandoned - claimed did not know was stolen - had to be honest belief
|
|
|
Velumyl 1989
|
theft - intention to permanently deprive - D took £1050 from the office safe - said he was owed some money by a friend and would have replaced it when he got repaid - convicted - intended to permanently deprive company of the banknotes he took even if he intended to replace them with banknotes to same value later
|
|
|
DPP v Lavender 1994
|
theft - intention to treat property as his own - 'dispose of' has been tricky to define - D took door from council house under renovation to replace a broken one at hid gf's council house - still in hands of council BUT he had treated it as his own - guilty
|
|
|
Lloyd 1985
|
theft - borrowing or lending - D took film and copied it - no damage to original - not sufficient for intention to permanently deprive
|
|
|
Cogan and Leak 1976
|
parties to a crime - innocent agents - L terrorised his wife into having sex with another man C - C's conviction for rape quashed as honestly believed L's wife was consenting - L's rape conviction upheld - he had procured the crime to happen
|
|
|
Bland 1988
|
secondary parties to a crime - aiding - D shared room with co-accused who was convicted of drug possession - mere knowledge not enough to be aiding
|
|
|
Gianetto 1996
|
secondary parties to crime - abetting - anything from mere encouragement upwards
|
|
|
Coney and others 1882
|
secondary parties - abetting - 3 onlookers at bare knuckle fight - presence must be combined with the culpable mental element for it to be abetting
|
|
|
Allan 1965
|
secondary parties - abetting - onlooker at affray - secret intention that would help if needed - cant be convicted for his thoughts
|
|
|
Du Cros v Lambourne/ Ruble v Faulkner 1940
|
secondary parties - abbetting through omission - allowed principal to drive their car carelessly whilst in passenger seat - abetting
|
|
|
Tuck v Robson 1970
|
secondary parties - abetting through omission - pub landlord failed to get drinkers out of his pub before closing - abetting
|
|
|
Luffman 2008
|
secondary parties - counselling - D convicted of counselling after paying hitman and pestering him to kill her ex-husband as quick as possible
|
|
|
Calhaem 1985
|
secondary parties - counselling - advise/solicit - must be contact between the parties and a connection between the counselling and the offence committed - D wanted Z to kill V - paid down payment - Z changed mind but intended to pretend he had killed in order to keep downpayment - got to door armed but went crazy and attacked V - killed V - D claimed that the causal connection between her counselling and the outcome was severed as Z decided to kill of own accord - appeal dismissed
|
|
|
Milward 1994
|
secondary parties - procuring - famer instructed E to drive unroadworthy tractor on road - trailer detached and killed V - farmer convicted of procuring the offence
|
|
|
AG Reg (no1 of 1975)
|
secondary parties - procuring - D jokily laced friend's drink with alcohol - before could stop him, his friend drove home - done for driving under influence - D convicted of procuring the offence
|
|
|
National Coal Board v Gamble 1959
|
secondary parties - mens rea - intention - an indifference as to the result of the crime does not itself negate abetting
|
|
|
Bainbridge 1960
|
secondary parties - knowledge of circumstances - 'contemplation principle' - dont need to prove that knew of precise crime to be committed but simply that he had knowledge of the type of crime that was in fact committed
D provided oxygen cutters - bank robbery - convicted of aiding and abetting - could reasonably foresee nature of crime |
|
|
English 1997
|
joint enterprise - D and E attacking PO with wooden posts - E produces knife and killed PO - D didnt know of knife - participate knowing risk of serious injury but had not contemplated use of knife - conviction quashed
|
|
|
Hyde, Sussex and Collins 1991
|
joint enterprise - 3 men attacking man in car park - one fatal blow to head - couldnt establish who - all 3 guilty of murder as either delivered fatal blow or foresaw that one of the others might
|
|
|
Uddin 1998
|
7 principles of joint enterprise
|
|
|
Rafferty 2007
|
joint enterprise - fundamentally different rule - 3 men attacking V, D left scene with V's bank card to attempt robbery, came back and the other 2 had dragged V into sea and drowned him - D's conviction quashed as had only contemplated assault and robbery not murder - fundamentally different
|
|
|
Becerra and Cooper 1975
|
joint enterprise - withdrawal - D and E burlaring flat - confrontation with homeowner - D said 'lets get out of here' and jumped out window, E got caught by homeowner and stabbed him - D claimed he had withdrawn - something vastly different and more effective required to withdraw from pre-planned joint enterprise
|
|
|
Rook 1993
|
joint enterprise - withdrawal - simply not turning up on the day is not enough
|
|
|
Baker 1994
|
joint enterprise - withdrawal - 3 men stabbing V - D stabbed 3 times then said i'm not doing it and handed over knife then turned back on the venture - others finished the job - D had not withdrawn
|
|
|
Mitchell and King 1998
|
joint enterprise - withdrawal from spontaneous activity - D, E and F in fight, walked away but F returned and inflicted fatal injuries - D and E not guilty of murder
|
|
|
O'Flaherty & others 2004
|
joint enterprise - withdrawal from spontaneous violence - D and 2 others - 2 others not convicted as had left at time of fatal blow - D had followed disturbance and was partaking at time of fatal stab
|
|
|
DPP v P (2007)
|
capacity - children aged 10 or over - possibly still open to prove that they did not know act was seriously wrong
|
|
|
G and Another 2003
|
capacity - children aged 10 and over - must possess mens rea - compared with child of same age - did they perceive the danger of harm?
|
|
|
Adam v Camfoni 1929
|
capacity - vicarious liability - act of employee - employer only liable if employer authorised to act - D was a licensee charged with selling alcohol outside hours permitted - but sale was by messenger boy who had no auth to sell anything - not guilty
|
|
|
Coppen v Moore (no2)
|
capacity - vicarious liability - act of employee - employer can be liable if employee doing act authorised to do even if she is doing it in a way not authorised - sales assistant sold ham as 'scotch ham' when it wasnt - employer still liable
|
|
|
LBC v Shah and Shah 1999
|
capacity - vicarious liability - act of employee - can still be held liable if take steps to prevent wrong behaviour by employees - lottery ticket
|
|
|
Allen v Whitehead 1930
|
capacity - vicarious liability -delegation principle - D delegated role of stopping prostitutes meeting in his cafe to the manager - manager allowed it to continue - D liable
|
|
|
Vane v Yiannopoullos 1964
|
capacity - delegation principle - must be complete delegation - licensee at restaurant told waitress not to sell alcohol to customers without food - he was on different floor and waitress sold to 2 youths - no complete delegation so licensee not liable
|
|
|
DPP v Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd 1944 / ICR Haulage Ltd 1944 / Moore v I Bresler Ltd 1944
|
corporate liability - principle of identification - one or more of senior members identified as directing mind and will - their intent was deemed to be the intent of the company
|
|
|
H L Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v TJ Graham + Sons Ltd 1956
|
corporate liability - principle of identification - company likened to human body - nervous system/brain and limbs
|
|
|
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass 1972
|
corporate liability - principle of identification - tesco advertised washing poweder at reduced price - employee failed to tell store manager when all packs gone - customer complained - tesco claimed that act done by another person - tesco store manager held not to be of sufficiently senior status to be the acts of the company - not convicted
|
|
|
P&O European Ferries 1991
|
corporate liability - principle of identification - no individual whose negligence could be identified as the negligence of the company - escaped criminal liability
|
|
|
Tesco v Brant LBC 1993
|
corporate liability - principle of identification - tesco convicted of supplying video to under 18 - tesco argued that there was no way that the directors could have known that the buyer was under 18 as were not present in store - idiots - sufficient that the employee could have known under 18 for the company to be liable
|
|
|
OLL ltd 1994
|
corporate manslaughter - rare - first case successful - 4 teenages killed in canoeing tragedy - risks taken by company - company was a one-man outlet run by Kite- his gross negligence attributed to the company - both he and the company guilty of manslaughter
|
|
|
Southall rail Crash
|
corporate manslaughter - an individual must be identified as having the mens rea
|
|
|
Hudson and Taylor 1971
|
general defences - duress - seriousness of threat - must be death or serious personal injury
Threat must be operating on D or other parties at moment committed offence - Hudson and taylor were witnesses of malicious wounding at a pub - threatened by D's friend that they would be cut if they identified D - D's friend was in public gallery - girls convicted of perjury but claimed duress - just because in apparent safety of court room did not mean threat was not operating on them |
|
|
M'Growther 1746
|
general defences - duress - seriousness of threat - threat to property insufficient
|
|
|
Singh 1974
|
general defences - duress - seriousness of threat - threat to expose secret sexual orientation insufficient
|
|
|
Valderrama-Vega 1985
|
general defences - duress - seriousness of threat - death or serous injury doesnt have to be the sole reason for acting - carried cocaine as threatened with death, he needed the money and was threatened to have homosexuality exposed
|
|
|
Wright 2000
|
general defences - duress - threat to whom? - D carried drugs from st lucia to gatwick for fear bf would be killed - she had also been threatened with death but at the time of crime the threat was still operating on her bf as he was still in st lucia with the badmen - not guilty
|
|
|
Gill 1963
|
general defences - duress - opportunities to escape - D threatened with violence if did not steal lorry - but there was a period of time where he could have raised the alarm - was defence open to him?
|
|
|
Cole 1994
|
general defences - duress - duress does not exist in the abstract - money lenders pressurising Cole for money - led him to rob building societies - he was not told to rob them so duress not available
|
|
|
Fitzpatrick 1977
|
duress - not available if you voluntarily associate self with people who may pressure you/are known for violence - voluntary member of IRA yet pleaded duress to offences such as murder - just NO
|
|
|
Sharp 1987
|
duress - voluntary association - D participated in armed robbery, 3 weeks later the group carried out another - D claimed he was only bagman as threatened with death if did not partake - duress not available
|
|
|
Ali 1995/ Baker and Ward 1999
|
duress - voluntary association - dont have to be part of criminal organisation - associating with those known for violence enough - drug users with dealers
|
|
|
Shephard 1987
|
duress - voluntary exposure - D joined a gang of apparantly non violent shoplifters - pleaded duress as when he tried to leave he and his family were threatened with violence
|
|
|
Graham 1982
|
duress - should D have resisted the threats? - first assess D's belief (subjective) - belief must be reasonable and must give good cause to fear death or serious violence - if objectively unlikely then defence fails
second - objective - relevant characteristics - age sex - would person similar have acted same? |
|
|
Dudley and Stephens 1884
|
duress - necessity is not a defence to murder - D and S shipwrecked with another man and a cabin boy - ate the cabin boy - 4 days later resued - would have died but did not know that eating the boy would have made them survive - not necessary to kill anyone - convicted
|
|
|
Howe and Bannister
|
duress - murder - ordinary man may be expected to sacrifice his own life if asked to take that of another - D and E paricipated in horrific assault - claimed feared for life - convicted of all charges
|
|
|
Gotts
|
duress not defence to attempted murder - D aged 16 was threatened with death by his father if he did not kill his mother - tried to kill her - failed - guilty of attempted murder
|
|
|
Willer 1986/ COnway 1988
|
duress of circumstances - Ds drove dangerously to escape perceived threats
|
|
|
Martin 1989
|
duress of circumstances - wife threatened to kill herself if D did not drive stepson to work - D was disqualified at the time - conviction quashed
|
|
|
Re A(2000)
|
necessity - conjoined twins to be separated to save life of one of them or both would die
3 requirements for necessity: 1. act needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable damage 2. no more should be done than is necessary for purpose 3. the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided |
|
|
Quayle and Others 2005/ Altham 2006
|
necessity - if no public interest - not allowed - use of illegal drugs for pain relief - not enough for necessity defence
|
|
|
DPP v Morgan 1976
|
defences - Mistake of fact - may negate liability provided they were honestly made
this was a rape case and despite rape being redefined so that 'honestly' not enough , principle still applies to other crimes |
|
|
Esop 1836/ Lee 2000
|
defences - mistake of law - ignorance not a defence - cant say you did not know the law
Esop - bigamy legal in israel but committed in england Lee 2000 - thought POs did not have right to stop him so drove off |
|
|
Johnson 1994
|
self defence - evidence must be presented - if 'fanciful and speculative' judge can withdraw the defence
|
|
|
Williams 1987
|
self defence - necessity of force - rests on whether D honestly thought the force was needed
D attacked a man he thought was attacking a youth - he had asked the man what he was doing - the man said he was arresting the youth who had mugged granny (true) and that he was a PO (not true) - D asked to see warrant card - did not produce - attack - belief need not be reasonable - conviction quashed |
|
|
Beckford
|
self defence - do not need to wait for first blow or shot - pre-emptive approach
|
|
|
AG ref (no2 of 1983)
|
self defence - can be ok to prepare for an attack
D's shop had been attacked and damaged by rioters - he made petrol bombs - charged with possession of explosive substance - self defence accepted |
|
|
Bird 1985
|
self defence - duty to retreat?
requiring that D show they are not willing to fight places too greater obligation on D |
|
|
Palmer 1971
|
self defence - reasonableness of force - crucial that jury puts self in circumstances as D preceived them to exist
|
|
|
Martini 2001
|
self defence - relevance of D's characteristics - C of A - held that psychiatric evidence that caused D to perceive much greater danger that the average person is irrelevant to the question of whether D had used reasonable force - the question in self defence is whether the amount of force used was (objectively) reasonable according to what D (subjectively) believed
|
|
|
O'Grady 1987
|
self defence - intoxication, mistake and self defence - a mistaken belief in the need to use force in self defence is no defence if that mistake was caused by D's voluntary intoxication
|
|
|
Howard 1965
|
consent as a defence - if V is a child or mentally retarded - apparant consent may not suffice
|
|
|
Burrell v Harmer 1967
|
consent as a defence - apparent consent may not suffice - gave children aged 12 and 13 tattoos - that did not understand level of pain involved
|
|
|
Bolduc and Bird 1967
|
consent and fraud - D told V he was a medical student - vaginal examination - actually a musician - no assault as had not decieved as to nature of act
|
|
|
Mobilio 1991
|
consent and fraud - D inserted medical probe to carry out diagnostics - he was actually acting for sexual gratification - no assault as had not deceived as to nature of act - exactly what he said would happen did
|
|
|
Richardson 1998
|
consent and fraud - disqualified dentist continued practice - charged with assault BUT no - no decpetion as to nature/ quality of act / identity of person
|
|
|
Tabassum 2000
|
consent and fraud - D had no medical training but carried out breast examinations on 3 women and acted like a doctor - said it was for a survey - convicted - deceived as to 'quality' of D's act
|
|
|
Dica
|
defences - doctrine of informed consent - overruled Clarence - Dica had sex knowing had HIV - said he could use no protection as had had a vasectomy - convicted of biological GBH
|
|
|
AG Reference (no6 of 1980)
|
scope of consent - bare knuckle fighting has no public interest - not legal
|
|
|
Brown and others 1994
|
scope of consent - consent is a defence to common assault but no more unless recognised exception - sport, tattooing, surgery, piercing etc
|
|
|
Bradshaw 1878 / Moore 1898
|
scope of consent - contact sports - no sport can make lawful what is unlawful
|
|
|
Barnes 2004
|
scope of consent - contact sport - late hard tackle in football - prosecutions should only be brought if conduct 'sufficiently grave' to be properly categorised as criminal. - went beyond what could reasonably be accepted by playing sport
|
|
|
Slingsby 1995
|
consent - sexual activity - stated that infliction of violence for sexual gratification is unlawful
|
|
|
Wilson 1997
|
consent - branding - husband branded wife with her consent - not in public interest to criminalise such activity
|
|
|
Donovan 1934
|
consent - violent sexual gratification - beat 17 year old prostitute on bum - not justified
|
|
|
Brown and Others 1994
|
sado- masochism - beyond acceptable limits - large group convicted - in public interest to do so - spread of aids
|
|
|
Clarke 1972
|
mental capacity defences - defect of reason - 'deprived of power of reasoning' - does not apply to momentarily loss of reasoning power - D went into supermarket - put items in bag absent mindedly and left shop without paying - depression and diabetes - but this is not insanity - simply not guilty as lacked mens rea
|
|
|
Quick 1973
|
mental capacity defences - insanity - disease of the mind - insanity does not apply when external factor aka insulin overdose if forget to take food
|
|
|
Hennessey 1989
|
mental capacity defences - insanity - disease of the mind - diabetes - insanity if dont take insulin - internal malfunction
|
|
|
Sullivan 1984
|
mental capacity defences - insanity - disease of the mind - epilepsy considered as insanity - was in flat with V, next thing remembered was V lying on floor with head injuries
|
|
|
T(1990)
|
mental capacity defences - post traumatic stress disorder - woman raped 3 days earlier to committing robbery and assault - automatism left to jury as opposed to insanity
|
|
|
Windle 1952
|
mental capacity defences - insanity - nature and quality of act - if knows act was wrong then cannot rely on insanity - D poisoned wife and when arrested said 'i suppose they'll hang me for this'
|
|
|
Bratty 1963
|
mental capacity defences - automatism - act done by muscles without control or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing - concussion/sleeping etc
|
|
|
Isitt 1978/Hill v Baxter/ Watmore v jenkins/ Broome v Perkins
|
mental capacity defences - automatism - strict liability crimes - complete loss of control needed - all these cases involved driving whilst supposedly not consious of what doing - but demonstrated elements of control so not entitles to automatism defence
|
|
|
T(1990)
|
mental capacity defences - automatism - mens rea crimes - need to show did not form mens rea - T opened complex penknife in a robbery - demonstrated controlled action BUT was acting as though in a dream - automatism
|
|
|
Narbrough 2004
|
mental capacity defences - automatism - mens rea crimes - need to show did not form mens rea - 'acting like a zombie' - confusing past and present after being abused as a child - stabbed V - not entitles to automatism defence as no evidence presented for link between post traumatic stress and automatism
|
|
|
Kay v Butterworth 1945
|
mental capacity defences - automatism - self induced automatism - a driver who feels drowsy yet continues to drive may not be able to access automatism defence if crashes when falls asleep at wheel
|
|
|
Ryan v R 1967
|
mental capacity defences - automatism - reflex actions - D shot and killed V - tying up V in robbery - V moved - D startled and finger pulled trigger - not guilty of murder but manslaughter - involuntary act by definition but not enough to allow him to escape criminal liability
|
|
|
DPP v Majewski 1977
|
mental capacity defences - intoxication
- intoxication no defence if, despite the intoxication D formed the mens rea - where D was involuntary intoxicated and failed to form mens rea - acquitted - where D was voluntarily intoxicated and failed to form the mens era, D is entitled to acquittal if the offence is of specific intent, if basic intent - jury must consider whether D would have formed mens rea had he been sober you pigs i'll kill you all - knew he was assaulting someone and that they were POs |
|
|
Sheehan 1975
|
mental capacity defences - intoxication - a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent
|
|
|
Kingston 1995
|
mental capacity defences - intoxication - even if involuntarily intoxicated can still be liable if formed the mens rea - D was lured into room with 15 year old boy and drugged - D had tendencies of poedaphilia and homosexualality which could be controlled when sober - when drugged he was encouraged to abuse sleeping 15 year old - he intended to touch the boy inappropriately even if he was intoxicated - convicted
|
|
|
Heard 2007
|
mental capacity defences - intoxication - very intoxicated D danced and rubbed penis on policeman's thigh - arrested - claimed did not remember but admitted that when drunk he may go silly and start stripping' - behaviour had shown intent - convicted
|
|
|
Allen 1988
|
mental capacity defences - intoxication - home made wine - didnt know how strong - rape - no defence - take risk when drink alcohol as to its strength plus well known that homemade alcohol stronger
|
|
|
Eatch 1980
|
mental capacity defences - intoxication - what if alcoholic drink spiked - ask jury whether D's voluntary intoxication was sole reason for condition
|
|
|
Burns 1974
|
mental capacity defences - drugs taken under prescription - are they aware of nature of drug? - D consumed morphine tablets for a stomach complaint before committing offence - jury need to be advise to acquit if believe that D did not know of effects
|
|
|
Hardie 1985
|
mental capacity defences - prescription drugs - took gf's valium tablets - depressed at having to move out - started fire in wardrobe - valium not known to cause aggression/ lack of risk appreciation - not guilty
|
|
|
Richardson and Irwin 1998
|
horseplay at uni - intoxicated - held V over balcony - fell and hurt - would they have appreciated the risk sober? - based on whether these boys not the general person
|
|
|
Gallagher 1963
|
mental capacity defences - intoxication - dutch courage - D decided to kill wife when sober - bought knife and whisky - drank whisky to give courage to do it - guilty - cant rely on intoxication defence
|
|
|
Lipman 1970
|
mental capacity defences - intoxication and automatism - D and gf took LSD - during trip D though V was a snake - stuffed bedsheet down throat and killed her - guilty of the basic intent crime of manslaughter
|
