CASE LIST - FINAL

CASE LIST
CONTINUING MENS REA

Ø Woolmington (1935) act and intention must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; Thabo mei (1954) – continue actus rea – D threw V off a cliff thinking he was dead; Fagan (1969) – packed on policeman’s leg.

STRICT LIABILITY

Ø Walkington (1979) – entering part of a building and being held responsible; Smith Morgan (2001); DPP v Morgan (1976) – Mistake of fact will result in acquittal where there is no mens-rea

www.clubfreedom.biz/blessoks

INTENTION AND RECKLESSNESS

Ø Hyam v DPP (1957) – implied malice aforethought
Ø Cunningham (1982) - Implied malice aforethought
Ø C v G and Elliot – mentally subnormal girl constructed murder
Ø Caldwell (1992) – unjust definition of reckless ness
Ø Elliot (1993) – unfairness in establishing objective standard
Ø Smith (1990) – a man who placed bomb on a plane to frighten people and not to kill them
Ø R & G (2003) – subjective meaning of recklessness
Ø McNaghten rule on insanity

OMISSION

Ø R v Pittwood (1902) – contractual duty. Railway crossing
Ø R v Gibbens and Proctor (1918) – Family duty. Parent
Ø R v Stone and Debbinson (1977) \- Victim’s reliance on D’s assurance
Ø R v Millier (1983) – Duty to mitigate consequence of D’s action

CAUSATION

Ø R v White (1910) – But for, D’s conduct was not legal cause of death; R v Jordan (1958) - Wrong medical treatment; R v Smith (1959) - Right medical treatment; R V Malcherek (1981) – removal of life support did not break causation; R v Cheshire (1991) - medical negligent would not break the chain of causation; R v Blaue (1975) – Thin skull principle; AG’s Ref (No. 4 of 1980) 1981 – Where D kills one or other act sufficient to establish manslaughter, it is not necessary in order to find a conviction to proved which one; R v Dear (1996) - Defendant’s neglect. D assaulted for sexual act on child; R v Dias (2001) – Only third party extra ordinary event can break chain of causation; Lewis v CPS (2002) – Duty of care exist in joint enterprise
Ø Rufell (2003) – Duty of care with unwell victim left in the cold

MANSLAUGHTER

Ø R v Church (1966) – Constructive manslaughter; R v Adamako (1994) – Gross negligence manslaughter

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

Ø Ireland v Burstow (1998) – inflicted means cause; DPP v Little (1992) – where there is a battery the defendant charge with assault by beating; Smith v Working Police (1983) ; Mowath (1968) – intention to inflict wound with foresight of some harm

INTOXICATION

Ø R v Majewski (1977) – Voluntary intoxication as defence for specific and not basic; AG’s Ref. (No. 2 of 1992 (1993); R v Sullivan (1984) - External cause is absolute necessary for automatism


AUTOMATISM/INSANITY

Ø Braddy v AG for Northern Ireland (1963) – Total loss of control is automatism
Ø AG’s Ref. (No. 2 of 1992 (1993); R v Lipmann (1970) – some form of control; R v Bailey (1983) - some form of control; R v Sullivan (1984) - External cause is absolute necessary for automatism; Queen v Falconer (1990) – it is presumed that D has mental capacity for his action
Ø Hyperglycaemia – high blood sugar level (internal) Hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar level) external (brought about by insulin treatment).

DRUGS

Ø R v Hardie (1955) – effect of non dangerous drug is a defence for basic/specific; R v Kingston (1984) – involuntary intoxication is a defence

DURESS

Ø R v Shyler(2001) - Accomplice to murder – no advantage of defence of duress
Ø R v Wright (2001) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
Ø R v Martin (1989) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
Ø R v Howe (1987) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
Ø R v Gotts (1992) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
Ø R v Ortiz (1986) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
Ø R v Grahams (1982)- ;;; ;;; ;;;
Ø R v Conway (1989) - Confirmed the existence of the duress
Ø R v Gillick (1985) - ;;; ;;; ;;;

NECESSITY
Ø Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2000) - Medical necessity; R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) -- held that necessity was not a defence to murder; DPP v Lynch – Duress was a defence for murder (participant); Abortion Act 1967 - Bourne (1938), Newton and Stungo (1958), Adams (1957) terminally ill

NECESSITYR v Willer (1986); R v Conway (1989); R v Martin (1989) defence of necessity for traffic offences

MISTAKE

Ø Williams (Gladstone) (1984) – mistake as to surround circumstance could be a def; DPP v Morgan (1976) – Mistake of fact will result in acquittal where no mens-rea; R v Majewski (1977) – Mistake from voluntary intoxication as defence for only specific, heavily criticise; R v O’Gardy (1987); R v O’Connor (1991); R v Hatton (2005); R v G (2003) – Honest mistaken belief would negative direct or oblique intention would negative mens rea; Woolin (1998) – honest mistae

SELF DEFENCE

Ø R v Williams (Gladstone) 1984) – reasonable for self defence
Ø Re A (Children) – Conjoined twins – reasonable force to prevent 1 injury many
Ø R v Owino (1995) – subjective interpretation

CONSENT

Ø R v Jones (1987); horseplay, lawful sporting activities, medical and dental treatment by doctors; R v Wilson (1996) – Tattooing and branding for love on buttock, R v Dika; R v Gonzani; Tabassum (2000) consent to nature not quality of the act;

PROVOCATION

Ø R v Duffy (1949) – defined provocation; R v Ahluwalia (1992) – Homicide Act 1957 did not provide a new definition of provocation, it remain a common law and not statutory defence; Luc Thiet Thuan v the Queen (1997); R v Smith (Morgan) – 2001 – characteristics attributable to a provoked D. All relevant characteristics; Attorney General for new Jersey v Holley (2005) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics; R v James (2006) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics; R v Karimi – Age and sex as the only characterists

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY

Ø R v Dunbar (1957) – Defendant to prove on balance of probabilities; R v Dietschmann (2003) – Drunkenness and diminished responsibility and definition of provocation, it remain a common law and not statutory defence; Luc Thiet Thuan v the Queen (1997); R v Smith (Morgan) – 2001 – characteristics attributable to a provoked D. All relevant characteristics; Attorney General for new Jersey v Holley (2005) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics; R v James (2006) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics; R v Karimi – Age and sex as the only characterists

INSANITY

Ø R v Smith (Morgan) – 2001 – characteristics attributable to a provoked D. All relevant characteristics; Attorney General for new Jersey v Holley (2005) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics; R v James (2006) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics; R v Karimi – Age and sex as the only characterists

DISHONESTY

Ø Ghosh Test

APPROPRIATION

Ø Lawrence (1972) – early principle on appropriation; Gomez (1993) - set the wide application; Hinks (2000) – affirmed Gomez – if there is dishonestly there is appropria.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE

Ø Morphitis v Salmon (1990) (a scratch on a scaffolding bar) were not considered criminal damage; Blake v DPP (1993) – Biblical quotation written on a concrete pillar with a marker pen; A (A Juvenile) v R (1978) – a young football supporter who spat a policeman coat and

BURGLARY

Ø Steven v Gourley (1859) – a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least endure for a considerable length of time; R v Collins (1972) – effective and substantial entry. R v Ryan (1995) substantial entry; R v Smith and Jones (1976) – D with permission to enter a building but exceed the expressed or implied permission will enter as a trespasser. D who stole father’s television set.

THEFT

Ø R v Lloyd (1985) – Permanently depriving deemed exist where the defendant intended to return the goods in a fundamentally different change so that all their value would have been lost; R v Fernandes (1995) – Treating the property as one’s own to dispose regardless of the other’s right

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

Ø R v Dawson (1976) – when force has been used or threatened in robbery it is a question for the jury to decide; R v Hale (1978) – Force used after the appropriate has taken place would not amount to robbery; R v Robbinson (1977) – Honest belief in the D ownership of the property could lead to acquittal.

ATTEMPT

Ø R v Tosti (1977) – Ds got to the scene of the attempted burglary and touch the padlock. Held that the moment they started examining the padlock they moved beyond planning and preparation to execution; R v Campbell (1991) D arrested within 10 yards of the post office he intended to rob; R v Griffin (1993) - Definition of attempt – Criminal Attempt Act 1981; R v Geddes (1996) – D was found in the boy’s toilet of a school where he intend to kidnap a pupil. The court held that in both cases they have not moved into execution stage. No contact with the victim.

CONSIPIRACY

Ø R v Banks (1873) – It must be communicated; R v Tyrell (1894) – The person that the law is designed to protect cannot be liable for inciting that offence; DPP v Armstrong (2000) – it was impossible to incite a police provocateur to provide child pornography; R v Siracusa (1989) – To play some part would include doing nothing to stop the unlawful activity.

SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE

Ø Billam (1986) – Life sentence; Townsend (1995) – touching or stroking is sexual assakt; Osman (2000) – touching or stroking; Lambert (2002) – reverse onus with the presumption of innocence

RECENT CASES – 2007

Ø R v Abu Hamza (2006) – Convicted of terrorism abroad
Ø R v Saik (2006) – freed because he lacked mens rea when he exchange foreign currency
Ø R v Curtis (2006) – not to over convict or under convict. The judge should leave the option of manslaughter to the jury even where the parties agreed that it was not necessary. D killed his girlfriend and claimed he lacks mens rea
Ø R v Dhaliwal (2006) – Bodily hard is restricted to known psychiatric illness
Ø R v Hendy (2006) – diminished responsibility and provocation - Dietschmann (2003) had not propounded any new law but affirmed law existing since R v Gittens (1984)
Ø R v Smith (2006) – cutting somebody’s hair without permission is an assault’
Ø R v Atham (2006) – who pleaded necessity for using cannabis failed in his attempt
Ø R v Mullaly (2006) – who drove while drunk saying police were there

RECENT CASES – 2006

Ø R v Mitchel (2004) – lack of lawful excuse to remove clamp on a vehicle wrongly packed
Ø R v Sofoniou (2004) – confirms the retroactive effect of s.1(3) of TAA 1996 Mortgage was a service
Ø DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2004) – you can by word and deed possess actus reas when you exposed someone to a risk of injury which materialised
Ø R v Willoughby (2005) – unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter are not mutually exclusive. D can be guilty by both route
Ø R v Faqir Mohammed – reasonable man
Ø R v Claydon (2005) – incitement cannot be made out where the incitee is legal incapable
Ø R v Hassan (2005) – you can rely on duress where you voluntarily associate with criminals
Ø R v Wang (2005) – the jury had no power to pre-empt the jury by directing it to convict
Ø R v Carey and others (2006) – it was considered remote when D punched the victim and she died of previously unknown heart attack 109 yards away