Flashcards
Cases Semester 1
Flashcards do conjunto (69)
- 1R v. Larsonneur (1933)-brought into UK against her will, previously banned, charged with Illegal Alien, Not Voluntary
-Actus reus done by police not herself - 2Winzar v. Chief Constable Kent (1983)-Drunk man in police car on motor way, charged with such,
-Not voluntary actus reus - 3R v. Pittwood (1902)-left gate open on railway line, train hit hay cart
-contractual duty, omission to close gate - 4R. v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) Domestic Violence Crimes and Victims Act 2006-Starved child, held duty of care, satisfied GBH by omission, mens rea was present
-stops the death of children under 18 - 5R. v Hood (2003)-Couples who are married hold duty of care to each other
- 6R. v Smith (1826)-no duty of care between brothers and sisters
- 7R. v Evans (2009)-non blood siblings don't hold a duty of care
-omission however with creation of dangerous situation ##Miller, [extended where D contributes]
-convicted Gross negligence manslaughter
#Dennis Baker, compare Evans to Kennedy - 8R. v Adomako (1994)- doctors hold a duty of care to their patients
-GNM, held 3 elements:
Had duty of care
beached the duty of care
caused V's death
-confirmed by R. v Misra (2004) - 9R. v Stone and Dobinson (1977)-implied duty of care, let sister into home when ill, dies later, omission liable for manslaughter
- 10Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)-D ran over V's foot, refused to move car, 'continuing act' not an omission, Continuing Act Duty
##Compare to Miller 1983 - 11R. v Miller (1983)-Creation of Danger Duty
-created a danger when lighting mattress, duty to put out - 12DPP v Santana Bermudez (2003)-drug user stop and searched, creation of dangerous situation ##Miller
-prosecuted for battery - 13Test: Factual Causation-If for not D' conduct, would prohibited result still of occurred anyway at the same time and way
-R. v Dyson (1908),
R. v White (1910) [poisoned mother, died any ways]
-'yes'= D not liable, factual cause - 14Test: Legal Causation-if D is the factual cause, is D substantial blameworthy
-##Pittwood, R v Dalloway (1847) - 15What can break the chain of causation?-A Novus Actus Interveniens,
-Interventions from V or a 3rd party which is FREE, VOLUNTARY and INFORMED - 16The FREE, VOLUNTARY and INFORMED test is needed for what?An intervening act, novus actus interveniens
- 17R. v Kennedy (no.2) (2007)- Drug supplier made and supplied drugs to V.
-V injected self, coma, death. D sought medical help
-V action was novus actus interveniens, D not liable
-D's actions same as reasonable person - 18Name a case where V's act was not free or voluntaryR.v Burgess (2008)
-syringe pushed into V, administered drug - 19Name a case where there was an intervention of a third party-R. v Jordan (1956), stabbed but wound begins to heal in hospital. Doctor gives drug which kills V. Novus Actus Intervienens
-Confirmed in R. v Cheshire (1991) - 20R. v Manley (1844)-child gave money from till to robber, didn't understand.
-not novus actus interveniens - 21R. v Roberts (1971) ...and what can we contrast this case with-jumps out of moving car in fear of rape, grievous bodily harm
-V's act reasonably foreseeable
-R. v Blaue (1974) - 22R. v Blaue (1974)-V refused blood transfusion, tried to claim novus actus interveniens
-thick skull rule - 23What is the Mens Rea for murder? Support?Intention to kill or cause grevous bodily harm.
R. v Cunningham (1982)
R. v Maloney (1985) - 24What is the Mens Rea for criminal damage? Support?-Without lawful excuse destroys or damages property any property belonging to another, intend to do so or is being reckless
-Criminal Damage Act 1971 s1(1) - 25What is the test for recklessness for criminal damage? Which case was it put forward in?-a circumstance that D is aware of a risk that exists or could exist
-a result when D is aware of a risk that may occur
-R v. G & R (2003) - 26A case over Legal guilt not moral guilt-R. v Yip Chiu-Cheung (1995)
- 27What case states that ignorance of the law is no defence?R. v Esop (1836)
- 28What is the 'golden rule' of intention and what case/Lord specified it?-Lord Bridge (R. v Moloney 1985) : Golden rule, when judge directing a jury, avoid any elaboration or paraphrase of what is meant by intent
- 29R. v Maloney (1985)-shot step father by accident, manslaughter
-previous problems with judge, jury and the expansion of intention - 30What are the two types of intention?Direct intention and indirect/oblique intention
- 31For direct intention you must have what?-The golden rule of intention- give intention its ordinary meaning (Lord Bridge:Maloney)
-D's aim/purpose (Cunliffe v Goodman 1950) - 32What is Indirect/oblique intention?-a side-effect that you accept as an inevitable or ‘certain’ accompaniment of your direct intent
Glanville Williams (1987) - 33What is the virtual certainty test?sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions, and D appreciated it such
- 34R v Hancock & Shankland [1985]-miners dropped rock onto car, killing passengers
-Expansion of Maloney, should include a reference to the degree of probability - 35What do we use today as a test for indirect intent?-R. v Woollin (1999)
- [1] Was the result D’s aim or purpose? (If yes - direct intent)
jury entitled to find intent (Mathews 2003)
2. Was the result virtually certain; and
Did D appreciate that this result was virtually certain? - 36Is the R. v G & R case test subjective or objective? Where is this test seen before? What are 2 dis/advantages of this type of test?-Subjective, Cunningham (1957)
Ad: focuses on the mind of D, protection of those unable of foresight (Stephenson 1979, homeless burnt hay stack)
Dis: under-inclusive, enables one to deliberately close mind to the obvious - 37What is the objective test for recklessness specified in MPC v Chadwell (1981)? (Now overruled by the subjective test)A person is reckless where:
(1) he does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk
(2) when he does the act he either has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or has recognised that there was some risk i - 38What is transferred malice?-Where D intends to harm X, however something occurs and D causes harm to V (a 3rd party), this intention is transferred to V whom the actus reus was committed
- 39Name 2 cases where transferable malice is usedR. v Mitchell 1983, D hits X who falls on V, breaks hip, dies later
R. v Latimer 1886, swings belt to hit X, hits V, GBH - 40State the case which shows that Mens rea cannot be transferred twice.Attorney-General’s Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1998], D stabs girlfriend who is pregnant, early pregnancy, baby dies after birth, not stabbing fault of death
- 41State the case where mens rea cannot be transferred between different offences.R. v Pembleton (1874) , threw stone at crowd of people, missed hit window, criminal damage
- 42When does a person come into being in case law?R. v Pulton (1832)
Child must obtain existence complete without the mother for a period of time, with independent respiration - 43Explain the case of R. v Senior (1832)-convicted of manslaughter when D stabbed X when pregnant, V died of stabbing 4 months after birth
-mens rea problem for murder, indirect intention
-not transferred malice, can't be done twice - 44D attacks V with a stick. D intends to cause harm to V, however hits V too hard and kills V. Liable for murder? Support using a case.-R. v Vickers (1957)
-mens rea for murder can be GBH
-confirmed by Cunningham (1982) - 45Involuntary manslaughter has 3 forms, what are they?Constructive, gross negligence and reckless
- 46For Constructive manslaughter, D must of performed three acts. What are they?D must perform an act which is unlawful, dangerous and caused the death of V
AG's Ref. (no.3 1994) - 47What was the problem with the charge of constructive manslaughter in R. v Franklin (1883)?-Threw crate off peer and killed man below
-for constructive manslaughter there must be an unlawful act which constitutes a criminal offence. The act committed (throwing the crate) was against civil law. - 48Does an act have to be intrinsically criminal? What case confirm this-Andrews v DPP 1937
-R. v Lamb 1967 - 49Constructive manslaughter can only arise due to an act, T/F?-True, constructive manslaughter cannot arise from an omission and is this is confirmed by R. v Lowe (1973)
-this reduces Constructive manslaughter - 50Name a case where psychiatric harm amounts to ABH or GBH-Ireland and Burstow (1998), silent phone calls to V
- 51The concept of dangerous harm is put forward in what kind of test, and in what case?Objective test of the reasonable person
R. v Church (1966) - 52explain the case of R. v Dawson (1985)imitation gun used when robbing petrol station, V suffers heart attack and dies. Unsuccessful prosecution of Constructive manslaughter, reasonable person wouldn't see risk of heart attack in a 50 yr old
- 53What's a contrasting case for Dawson (1985)R. v Watson (1989),
87 yr old died from heart condition when home burgled, reasonable person foresee 87 yr old heart problems
risk of 'some harm' - 54Can a person foresee just 'some harm', or does it have to be a type of harm?R. v JM & SM (2012), doorman of nightclub suffered heart attack, court said it was Man slaughter. Reasonable person doesn't have to foresee type of harm, just some harm
- 55GNM can only be an act. T/F? Which cases confirm this?F- GNM can be either a act or an omission
R. v Litchfield (1998)
R. v Watts (1998)
R. v Khan & Khan (1998) - 56What is loss of control?It is a partial defence to reduce murder to manslaughter. A diminished responsibility. Decided by a jury
-found in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, previously known as 'provocation' - 57What case says that a jury must accept expert knowledge, and what can stop this?R. v Brennan (2015)
If evidence goes different directions, expects disagree or knowledge is challenged. A jury can interpret which one is correct. - 58What does the court use to recognise a medical condition? What do they recognise as a medical condition in R. v Tandy (1989)WHO and the American Psychiatric Association
-addiction - 59Why is the old law of provocation worse in defining mental health? What cases is this shown?Provocation was too broad in the use of mental health. Didn't use specific sources such as WHO.
R. v Webb (2011) killed wife in a mercy killing. In provocation claimed stress, WHO states different types of stress.
Diminished resp. stops this being so broad.
R. v Vinagre (1979), killed wife over affair, claimed illness of 'morbid jealously' - 60Explain the case of R. v Dowds (2012)D killed wife when drunk. Did not assert that he was dependant on alcohol. Could exercise control when he drank, but when he did drink, couldn't exercise the amount. Held voluntary intoxication was not alcoholism, not amount enough for diminished resonsibility
- 61What did R. v Golds (2015) change in diminished responsibility?Wording of 'substantial impairment' changed to 'significant'
- 62What cases relaxed the involuntary act of addiction in R. v Tandy (1989)?R. v Wood (2003) & R. v Stewart (2009)
- 63What 3 elements of substantial impairment must D have (at least one of)‘Manslaughter and Infanticide’ (2006) LC No. 304, para. 5.121
1) D's understanding of the nature of Conduct.
2) Inability to form a rational judgement
3) an inablility to exercise self control - 64When does life end and what case states this?Stop of breathing, lack of blood pumped and brain has cease to function.
Re: A (A minor) (1992) - 65Explain the case of R. v Adams (1957)Doctor administered high level of pain relief drug to patient. Cause V's death. Devlin J: 'doctor is entitled..' '...to relieve pain and suffering even if such measures may incidentally shorten life'
But such high amount caused full death of patient, liable for murder - 66What is the year and a day rule in provocation?(abolished s1 law reform 1996) liable for V's death, a year and a day after D's actions. e.g. hit by car, never fully recovered, dies as a result of coma after a year
- 67Explain the case of R. v Sutcliffe (1983)Yorkshire ripper, killed multiple prostitutes, told by god to do so. Could today be argued Dem.Res. holds causal link between abnormal mental functioning and death of V
Link introduced because provocation held no link and it was so wide - 68What three factors must Loss of control have to use as a defence?1) Loss of self control, Subjective test
2) this must stem from a trigger event , sub/obj test
3) a final objective test - 69—
Informações
- Descrição
- Criminal Law 107 Public Law 109 Contract law 105 Soci 107
- Criado por
- jordan.e.mallam
- Visualizações
- 26
- Avaliação