7617918
| Question | Answer |
| PAGETT | D used his pregnant girlfriend as a shield while he shot at armed police. The police fired back and she was killed. D was convicted of manslaughter. She would not have died 'but for' him using her a shield. |
| BENGE | D didn't relay railway tracks in time causing a train to crash and many people to die. He was charged with manslaughter. He argued that the flagman hadn't gone far enough and the train driver wasn't paying attention but he was still a legal cause of the death as he was more than a 'minimal' cause. |
| Question Text | Answer Text |
| Question Text | Answer Text |
| Question Text | Answer Text |
| Question Text | Answer Text |
| Question Text | Answer Text |
| PITTWOOD | A railway crossing keeper omitted to shut the gates meaning a person was struck by a train and killed while crossing the line. The keeper was guilty of manslaughter because of his duty to act arising from his contract of employment. |
| DPP v SANTANA-BEMUDEZ | A police officer wanted to search D. She asked if he had any sharps on him, he said no. The police officer was cut by a syringe. D was liable for ABH as he had a duty to prevent harm and he had failed to do so. |
| GIBBINS AND PROCTOR | A father deliberately staved his child. His failure to feed her was an omission which made him satisfy the actus reus of murder. |
| STONE AND DOBBINSON | Stone's elderly sister came to live with the D's. She became ill and due to incompetence and forgetfulness, both D's failed to summon help or care for her. V died. Both Ds were convicted of manslaughter. By allowing her to live with them, they promised to care for her and they omitted to do so. |
| DYTHAM | A police officer saw a violent attack on V but took no steps to intervene or summon help. The officer was guilty of neglecting to perform his duty as an officer of justice. |
| WOOLLIN | D threw his baby in the direction of a pram but missed and the baby fatally struck the wall. The trial judge should have made it clear that D must know that the undesired result was virtually certain to occur to find that D indirectly intended the death. |
| CUNNINGHAM | D tore a gas meter off the wall of an empty house in order to steal the money in it. This caused gas to seep into the house next door, making V ill. D was not liable as he didn't know there was a risk of gas escaping into V's house. He had not intended the harm, nor had he taken a risk that he knew about. |
| LATIMER | D aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub after that man had attacked him. The belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. D was convicted of wounding the woman. His intention to harm the man was transferred to the actual victim. |
| PEMBLITON | D threw a stone intending to hit people with whom he had been fighting. The stone missed and smashed a pub window. He was not liable for the damage to the window because his intention to hit people could not be transferred to property. |
| FAGAN v MPC | D was told by a police officer to move his car to the kerb. In doing so, he drove onto the Police Officer's foot without realising. The Police Officer asked him to move but he delayed in doing so. Once D knew the care was on his foot, he had the necessary mens rea. As the act was continuing, he had the two elements at the same time. |
| CHURCH | D went to his van with a woman to have sex. She slapped him when he was unable to satisfy her. D, intending only minor harm, punched her in the face, knocking her unconscious. Believing her to be dead, he threw her in the river and she drowned. D was liable for involuntary manslaughter. The drowning was part of a larger transaction and D formed the mens rea at some point during that transaction, when he hit her in the van. |
| DPP v MAJEWSKI | D had taken both alcohol and drugs. In an intoxicated state, he attacked people in a pub as well as the police who tried to arrest him. The House of Lords upheld his convictions, all of which could be committed recklessly. This ignores the principle hat the actus reus and mens rea must coincide. The decision to drink may be several hours before D commits the actus reus of an offence |
| CONSTANZA | Letters could be an assault. |
| IRELAND | Silent phone calls can be an assault. There is no need for any physical contact. |
| LOGDON v DPP | D showed V a gun in his office desk and said it was loaded. Although it was fake, this wasn't obvious. D was convicted of assault. V didn't have to be in any danger. |
| SMITH v SWPS | The court decided that D had committed an assault by standing in V's garden looking at her in her nightclothes through her bedroom window. V was terrified and did not know what D might do next. Unlawful force would have been imminent. |
| TUBERVILLE v SAVAGE | D, annoyed by the comments V had made to him, put his hand on his sword and said 'if it were not assize time I would not take such language', meaning since judges were hearing cases in the town at the time, he had no intention of using force. his words ruled out the threat implied by putting his hand to his sword, so there was no assault. |
| HAYSTEAD | D caused a small child to fall to the floor by punching the woman holding the child. D satisfied the actus reus of battery by indirectly applying force to the child. |
| GILLCIK v WEST NORFOLK AND WISBECH AHA | The House of Lords decided that even a child can consent to medical treatment provided they have the necessary maturity and sound understanding to do so. |
| SAVAGE | D threw the contents of her beer glass over V during a bar brawl. The glass slipped out of her band, broke and cut V's wrist. D intended to throw beer over her but did not intend the injury to V's wrist. D was convicted of s.47 because they had the mens rea of s.39 CJA which is all that is needed for s.47 OAPA |
| BURSTOW | D was obsessed with V. Over several months he stalked her, damaged her car and broke into her house. D's conduct caused V to suffer severe depression, insomnia and panic attacks. D was liable for maliciously inflicting GBH. |
| JCC v EISENHOWER | It was held that broken blood vessels in Vs eye, caused by pellets fired from an air rifle by D, did not amount to unlawful wounding within s.20 |
| MORRISON | A police officer grabbed D and told him she was arresting him. He dived through a window, dragging her with him so that her face was badly cut by the glass. The Court of Appeal held that the prosecution had to prove: 1. D intended to resist arrest by jumping through the window. 2. D either intended or was reckless that some harm might occur. |
| HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER | The 2 D's attacked and seriously injured a burglar as he was escaping down the street. The Court of Appeal held they couldn't use the defence of self-defence as the danger was over when they beat up the fleeing burglar. This was a revenge attack and the use of force was not necessary. |
| CLARKE | D absentmindedly took items from a supermarket while depressed; this was not insanity. |
| ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE (NO.2 OF 1983) (1984) | D prepared petrol bombs in feat of an attack on his shop. The Court of Appeal accepted that D could make preparations i self-defence. This is so even if the preparations involve breaches of the law. |
| WILLIAMS (GLADSTONE) | D punched a police officer whom he mistakenly though was assaulting someone and was charged with ABH. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction and held that D was to be judged on the facts as he believed them to be. his mistake as to the need to defend another did not have to be a reasonable one, as long as it was genuinely held |
| O'GRADY | D, who had been drinking all day, hit a friend over the head in the mistaken belief he was trying to kill him. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction for manslaughter. The defence of self-defence was rejected due to his intoxicated mistake. |
| MARTIN | A farmer fatally shot in the back a burglar and seriously injured another. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the farmer was entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself and his property, but agreed with the jury that the force was excessive. The defence of self defence was denied. |
| SHEEHAN AND MOORE | The Ds were very drunk when they threw petrol over a homeless person and set him on fire. V died as a result. They were too drunk to form the mens rea. The Court of Appeal held that because the Ds did not have the mens rea for murder, their voluntary intoxication was a defence to that specific intent crime. |
| A-G FOR NORTHERN IRELAND v GALLAGHER | D bought a knife to kill his wife and also bought a bottle of whiskey to give himself 'Dutch courage' to carry out the murder. He drank a large amount of the whiskey before killing him wife. His conviction for murder was upheld by the House of Lords. A drunken intent is still intent. |
| KINGSTON | Ds coffee was spiked with drugs by a blackmailer. D then abused a teenage boy and was charged with indecent assault. He argued that he would not have done this had he not been drugged. The House of Lords upheld his conviction for indecent assault. D has still formed the mes rea for the offence so the involuntary intoxication was not a defence. The fact that an intoxicating substance removed his inhibitions and he would not have done it if sober was not enough. |
| HARDIE | D was depressed because his girlfriend (V) had told him to move out of their flat. He took some of V's valium to calm him down. However, he later set fire to a wardrobe while V was asleep in another room. His conviction for aggravated criminal damage (basic intent) was quashed by the Court of Appeal. He had not taken the valium knowing they could make his behaviour unpredictable. He had not been reckless in getting intoxicated and lacked the necessary mens rea at the time of setting fire to the wardrobe. |
| LIPMAN | D killed his girlfriend thinking she was a giant snake whilst on an LSD trip. He was held not to have the specific intent to kill a human being and was acquitted of murder. Involuntary manslaughter has been classified as an offence of basic intent and he was convicted of this. |
| ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE (NO.6 OF 1980) (1981) | 2 teenage Ds decided to settle an argument by fighting in the street. Following acquittals for ABH, the Court of Appeal held that in future, consent would not be available in such circumstances because it is not in the public interest that people should intend to cause each other ABH for no good reason. |
| JONES AND OTHERS | A group of teenage boys tossed two other boys into the air causing serious injuries. The Ds claimed they believes that the two Vs consented to horseplay. The Court of Appeal quashed their convictions under s.20 OAPA 1861. A genuine mistaken belief in consent to horseplay could be a defence, even if that belief was unreasonable. |
| BARNES | D made a late tackle on V during a football match. V suffered a serious leg injury. D's conviction under s.20 OAPA 1861 was quashed on appeal. The Court of Appeal said it is not generally appropriate to bring criminal proceedings to such cases, unless D has gone beyond what V could reasonably be regarded as having consented to by taking part in the sport. However, if the injury is inflicted intentionally, the defence will fail. |
| WILSON | D branded his initials on his wife's buttocks at her request. However, she had to seek medical treatment for the burns and D was charged under s.47 OAPA 1861. The Court of Appeal held that branding was body adornment, like a tattoo. As there was no aggressive intent on D's part, it was not in the public interest that such consensual behaviour between husband and wife should be criminalised. |
| BROWN AND OTHERS | 5 homosexual men in a group of sadomasochists were convicted of offences under s.47 and s.20 OAPA 1861. They had carried out the sadomasochist acts in private. there were no complaints made to the police and no medical treatment was ever sought or permanent injury suffered. Their convictions were upheld by a majority of judges in the House of Lords. |
| BURRELL v HARMER | D was convicted of ABH after tattooing two boys aged 12 and 13 with the result that their arms became swollen an painful. there was no valid consent because the Vs were only children. Also, the boys didn't understand the nature of the act - they did not understand the level of pain involved. |
| NEWLAND | D had used a fake Facebook account and text messaged to deceive V into believing D was a man. When they met up for sex at V's flat, D always blindfolded V, used a fake penis and put on a deep voice. The jury rejected D's defence that V had consented to role play. There was no true consent as D had deceived V as to her identity. |
| TABASSUM | D was a lecturer in ICT and persuaded several women to allow him to measure their breasts for the purpose of preparing a database on breast cancer. The court of Appeal upheld his convictions for indecent assault. The Vs were consenting to touching for medical purposes only - there was no consent to the nature of the act. However, D's deceit as to the quality of his act meant there was no true consent. |
| KEMP | D had a narrowing of the arteries which reduced blood flow to the brain. This caused lapses of consciousness. During one of these, he attacked his wife with a hammer. The Court of Appeal upheld his special verdict. |
| SULLIVAN | D hit out at V during an epileptic fit and was convicted of ABH. The House of Lords upheld his conviction and held that the relevant defence was insanity as epilepsy was a disease of the mind. |
| HENNESSY | D was a diabetic who had taken a car and driven while disqualified. He had failed to take his insulin and this caused him to lose control of his actions. The Court of Appeal held that his failure to take his insulin meant it was the diabetes which caused his defect of reason and this was an internal factor. The correct defence was that of insanity. |
| BURGESS | D claimed he was sleep walking when he hit V over the head with a bottle. The Court of Appeal upheld the special verdict because of the cause of his defect of reason was an internal factor: a sleep disorder |
| WINDLE | D killed his wife with an overdose of aspirin and then said 'I suppose they'll hang me for this'. This showed he knew what he had done was legally wrong and so he could not use the defence of insanity. His conviction for murder was upheld on appeal. |
| ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE (NO.2 OF 1992) (1993) | D killed two people when his lorry crashed into a car on the hard shoulder of the motorway. He said he was in a trance like state at the time due to driving on the motorway for so long. The Court of Appeal held that because he still had some control over the lorry this did not amount to automatism. A partial loss of control is insufficient. |
| QUICK | D was a diabetic nurse who attacked one of his patients. He had failed to eat after taking insulin and argued this had caused him to lose control of his actions. The Court of Appeal held that his failure to eat meant that the insulin caused his loss of control and this was an external factor. This would therefore be automatism and not insanity. |
| ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE (NO.3 OF 1994) (1997) | D stabbed his girlfriend. she recovered from the wound, however he child was born alive but later died as a result of the premature birth caused by the stabbing. The House of Lords held that where a fetus is injured and is then born alive but later dies as a result of the injuries, this can be the actus reus for murder or manslaughter. |
| MALCHEREK | D stabbed his wife. She was taken to hospital and placed on a life support machine. Doctor's later switched it off as V was not showing any signs of brain activity. The Curt of Appeal upheld his conviction for murder. When it has been decided that V is brain dead, doctors can switch off the life support machine without being liable for murder. Also, switching off Vs life support machine does not break the chain of causation. |
| VICKERS | D broke into the cellar of a sweet shop where he was disturbed by the old lady who ran it. He hit her several times with his fists and kicked her once in the head. She died as a result of her injuries. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction for murder. If D intends GBH and V dies, this is sufficient to imply malice aforethought. |
| ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE (NO.3 OF 1994) (1997) | It was held by the House of Lords that it was not possible for D to have the mens rea to kill or cause GBH to a foetus. This is because it did not have a separate existence from the mother. |
| THABO MELI v R | The Ds attacked V in a hut and believed they had killed him. They then pushed his body off a low cliff. V survived the attack and later died of exposure when unconscious at the foot of the cliff. The Privy Council upheld their convictions for murder and said that the Ds causing V's death was part of a larger transaction and it was sufficient that they formed mens rea at some point during that transaction. |
| COCKER | D gave in to his wife's pleas to end her life to ease her from the pain of an incurable disease. D suffocated her with a pillow. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction for murder because the partial defence of provocation failed. He had not lost his self-control, only his self-restraint. |
| WARD | D successfully pleaded loss of control after killing V who had physically attacked D's brother at a house party. D did not fear serious violence personally, but this qualifying trigger nevertheless applied because he feared that V would use serious violence on his brother. |
| ZEBEDEE | D claimed to have lost self-control when he killed his elderly father who was senile, who whistled a tune over and over and repeatedly soiled himself in the middle of the night. The Court of Appeal upheld his murder conviction. Although there were things done, they were not extremely grave, nor did they give D a justifiable sense of being wronged. |
| CLINTON | D was suffering from depression. The day before he killed his wife she told him she was having an affair. On the day of her death, they argued and she taunted him about looking up suicide websites saying he didn't have the courage to commit suicide. He was convicted of murder but appealed on the basis that the defence of loss of control should be left to the jury. The Court of Appeal agreed as the sexual infidelity should have been used to explain the context of other things done and said. His conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered |
| DAWES | D attacked V who was asleep on the sofa with D's wife. V attacked back and was killed by D. D was denied the defence of loss of control die to s.55 (6). |
| BYRNE | D was a sexual psychopath who strangled young women and mutilated their bodies. The medical evidence was that because of his condition he couldn't control his perverted desires. The Court of Appeal quashed his murder conviction and substituted it for voluntary manslaughter. The court said that an 'abnormality of mind' was a state of mind so different from that of an ordinary human being that the reasonable man would term it abnormal. |
| DOWDS | D, in a state of acute intoxication, fatally stabbed his girlfriend. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction for murder on the basis that voluntary acute intoxication is not capable of establishing the defence of diminished responsibility. |
| DIETSCHMANN | D savagely attacked someone while suffering depression. He was also very drunk. The House of Lords quashed his murder conviction and substituted a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. The abnormality did not have to be the only cause of the killing but D had to show that despite the drink he had sufficient 'abnormality of mental functioning' to impair his responsibility for the killing. |
| LAMB | D and his friend (V) were playing with a revolver. They both knew it was loaded with two bullets, but thought it would only fire if one of the bullets was opposite the barrel. They were mistaken and V was shot and killed by D. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction because he had not done an unlawful act. The pointing of the gun at V was not an assault as V did not apprehend immediate and unlawful force. |
| LOWE | D was convicted of wilfully neglecting his baby son and of his unlawful act manslaughter. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found him guilty of wilful neglect, he was also guilty of unlawful act manslaughter. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction for manslaughter because the finding of wilful neglect involved a failure to act and this could not create liability for unlawful act manslaughter. |
| GOODFELLOW | D set fire to his council flat so that he could be rehoused. The fire burnt out of control and his wife, son and another woman died. The Court of Appeal upheld his conviction for unlawful act manslaughter because D's unlawful act can be aimed at property. |
| WATSON | 2 Ds entered a house and saw an elderly man but continued their act of burglary. He died of a heart attack 90 minutes later. Although the Court of Appeal quashed their convictions for unlawful act manslaughter due to problems with causation, the court states that the unlawful act of burglary had become dangerous as as soon as Vs frail condition would have been apparent to the reasonable man. |
| DPP v NEWBURY AND JONES | The Ds were teenage boys who pushed a piece of paving stone from a bridge onto a railway line as the train was approaching. The stone hit and killed the guard. The House of Lords upheld their convictions for unlawful act manslaughter as it was not necessary for the Ds to have foreseen any harm from their act. All that was needed was the mens rea of the unlawful act. |
| ADOMAKO | D was the anaesthetist for a man (V) who was having an operation. During Vs operation, the oxygen tube became disconnected. It took several minutes for D to realise why V was turning blue. A competent anaesthetist would have noticed the problem within seconds. V suffered brain damage and died 6 months later. The House of Lords upheld D's conviction for gross negligence manslaughter. |
| ANDREWS v DPP | D has driven a van above the speed limit and overtook another car. As he did so, he struck a pedestrian and killed him. The House of Lords upheld D's conviction for gross negligence manslaughter because motorists owe a duty of care to other road users and pedestrians. |
| WAKER | D smuggled 60 illegal Chinese immigrants into the UK and 58 died of suffocation due to D shutting the air vent in their container. D's convictions for gross negligence manslaughter were upheld by the Court of Appeal. D knew that the safety of the immigrants depended on his actions in relation to the air vent and he clearly assumed a duty of care. It was irrelevant that the Vs were party to an illegal act and that no duty of care was owed in civil law. |
| EVANS | V, aged 16 and a recovering addict, lived with her mum (D1) and older half-sister (D2). D2 supplied V with heroin and V self-administered it. Neither D tried to get held when V overdosed and died. Both Ds were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. D2 appealed, claiming she did not owe a duty of care to her half-sister. This argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal. D2 owed a duty of care because she had contributed to the creation of a state of affairs which she knew or ought to reasonably have known was life threatening. |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.