CASE LIST
CONTINUING MENS REA
1) Thabo mei (1954) – continue actus rea – D threw V off a cliff thinking he was dead
2) Fagan (1969) – packed on policeman’s leg.
STRICT LIABILITY
3) Walkington (1979) – entering part of a building and being held responsible
4) Smith Morgan (2001)
5) DPP v Morgan (1976) – Mistake of fact will result in acquittal where no mens-rea
INTENTION AND RECKLESSNESS
6) Hyam v DPP (1957) – implied malice aforethought
7) Cunningham (1982) - Implied malice aforethought
8) C v G and Elliot – mentally subnormal girl constructed murder
9) Caldwell (1992) – unjust definition of reckless ness
10) Elliot (1993) – unfairness in establishing objective standard
11) Smith (1990) – a man who placed bomb on a plane to frighten people and not to kill them
12) R & G (2003) – subjective meaning of recklessness
13) McNaghten rule on insanity
OMISSION
14) R v Pittwood (1902) – contractual duty. Railway crossing
15) R v Gibbens and Proctor (1918) – Family duty. Parent
16) R v Stone and Debbinson (1977) \- Victim’s reliance on D’s assurance
17) R v Millier (1983) – Duty to mitigate consequence of D’s action
CAUSATION
18) R v White (1910) – But for, D’s conduct was not legal cause of death
19) R v Jordan (1958) - Wrong medical treatment
20) R v Smith (1959) - Right medical treatment
21) R V Malcherek (1981) – removal of life support did not break causation
22) Cheshire (1991) - medical negligent would not break the chain of causation
23) R v Blaue (1975) – Thin skull principle
24) R v Miller (1954) – causation lead to criminal offence
25) 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
26) R v Lamb (1967) – mens rea is an essential element. Shut friend acquitted.
27) R v Dear (1996) - Defendant’s neglect. D assaulted for sexual act on child
28) R v Dias (2001) – Only third party extra ordinary event can break chain of causation
29) Lewis v CPS (2002) – Duty of care exist in joint enterprise
30) Rufell (2003) – Duty of care with unwell victim left in the cold
MANSLAUGHTER
31) R v Church (1966) – Constructive manslaughter
32) R v Adamako (1994) – Gross negligence manslaughter
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
33) Ireland v Burstow (1998) – inflicted means cause
34) DPP v Little (1992) – where there is a battery the defendant charge with assault by beating
35) Martin (1881) – Indirect battery
36) Smith v Working Police (1983) –
37) Mowath (1968) – intention to inflict wound with foresight of some harm
38) Read v Coker – fear of immediate assault is battery
INTOXICATION
39) R v Majewski (1977) – Voluntary intoxication as defence for specific and not basic
40) AG’s Ref. (No. 2 of 1992 (1993)
41) R v Lipmann (1970) – some form of control
42) R v Bailey (1983) - some form of control
43) R v Sullivan (1984) - External cause is absolute necessary for automatism
AUTOMATISM/INSANITY
44) Braddy v AG for Northern Ireland (1963) – Total loss of control is automatism
45) AG’s Ref. (No. 2 of 1992 (1993)
46) R v Lipmann (1970) – some form of control
47) R v Bailey (1983) - some form of control
48) R v Sullivan (1984) - External cause is absolute necessary for automatism
49) Queen v Falconer (1990) – it is presumed that D has mental capacity for his action
50) Hyperglycaemia – high blood sugar level (internal) Hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar level) external (brought about by insulin treatment).
DRUGS
51) R v Hardie (1955) – effect of non dangerous drug is a defence for basic/specific
52) R v Kingston (1984) – involuntary intoxication is a defence
DURESS
53) R v Shyler(2001) - Accomplice to murder – no advantage of defence of duress
54) R v Wright (2001) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
55) R v Martin (1989) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
56) R v Howe (1987) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
57) R v Gotts (1992) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
58) R v Ortiz (1986) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
59) R v Grahams (1982)- ;;; ;;; ;;;
60) R v Conway (1989) - Confirmed the existence of the duress
61) R v Gillick (1985) - ;;; ;;; ;;;
NECESSITY
62) Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2000) - Medical necessity
63) Re F (1990) - Line between duress and necessity
64) R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) -- held that necessity was not a defence to murder
65) DPP v Lynch – Duress was a defence for murder (participant)
66) Abortion Act 1967 - Bourne (1938), Newton and Stungo (1958), Adams (1957) terminally ill
67) R v Willer (1986); R v Conway (1989); R v Martin (1989) defence of necessity for traffic offences
MISTAKE
68) Latenock (1917) – mistaken belief induced by intoxication should be considered as a defence by the jury but would fail because reckless is enough
69) DPP v Morgan (1976) – Mistake of fact will result in acquittal where no mens-rea
70) DPP v B – Mistake of fact will result in acquittal where no mens-rea
71) R v Majewski (1977) – Mistake from voluntary intoxication as defence for only specific, heavily criticise
72) R v O’Gardy (1987) - Same
73) R v O’Connor (1991) – same
74) R v Hatton (2005) - same
75) Williams (Gladstone) (1984) – mistake as to surround circumstance could be a def.
76) R v G (2003) – Honest mistaken belief would negative direct or oblique intention would negative mens res
77) Woolin (1998) – honest mistae
SELF DEFENCE
78) R v Williams (Gladstone) 1984) – reasonable for self defence
79) Re A (Children) – Conjoined twins – reasonable force to prevent 1 injury many
80) R v Owino (1995) – subjective interpretation
81) CONSENT
82) R v Jones (1987); R v Atkin and Others (1992) - Available for rough horseplay, lawful sporting activities, medical and dental treatment by doctors;
83) R v Wilson (1996) – Tattooing and branding for love on buttock,
84) Burrell v Harmer (1967)Consent is invalid where there is non real understand of the consent
85) Tabassum (2000) consent to nature not quality of the act; impersonation R v Elbekkay (1995):
PROVOCATION
86) R v Duffy (1949) – defined provocation
87) R v Ahluwalia (1992) – Homicide Act 1957 did not provide a new definition of provocation, it remain a common law and not statutory defence
88) Luc Thiet Thuan v the Queen (1997)
89) R v Smith (Morgan) – 2001 – characteristics attributable to a provoked D. All relevant characteristics
90) Attorney General for new Jersey v Holley (2005) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics
91) R v James (2006) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics
92) R v Karimi – Age and sex as the only characterists
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
93) R v Dunbar (1957) – Defendant to prove on balance of probabilities
94) R v Byrne (1960) – Defendant to prove same
95) R v Dietschmann (2003) – Drunkenness and diminished responsibility
96) an definition of provocation, it remain a common law and not statutory defence
97) Luc Thiet Thuan v the Queen (1997)
98) R v Smith (Morgan) – 2001 – characteristics attributable to a provoked D. All relevant characteristics
99) Attorney General for new Jersey v Holley (2005) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics
100) R v James (2006) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics
101) R v Karimi – Age and sex as the only characterists
INSANITY
102) Luc Thiet Thuam
103) R v Smith (Morgan) – 2001 – characteristics attributable to a provoked D. All relevant characteristics
104) Attorney General for new Jersey v Holley (2005) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics
105) R v James (2006) – Age and Sex as the only characteristics
106) R v Karimi – Age and sex as the only characterists
DISHONESTY
107) Ghosh Test
APPROPRIATION
108) Lawrence (1972) – early principle on appropriation
109) Gomez (1993) - set the wide application
110) Gallasso (1993) – affirmed Gomez
111) Mazo (1997) – affirmed Gomez
112) Hinks (2000) – affirmed Gomez – if there is dishonestly there is appropria.
CRIMINAL DAMAGE
113) Lloyd v DPP(1991) – Damaging a clamp lock was considered a criminal offence
114) Gomez (1993) - set the wide application
115) Gallasso (1993) – affirmed Gomez
116) Mazo (1997) – affirmed Gomez
117) Hinks (2000) – affirmed Gomez – if there is dishonestly there is appropria.
118) Blake v DPP (1993) – Biblical quotation written on a concrete pillar with a marker pen, spraying on pavement Hardman and other (1986), Roe v Kingerlee (1986) (application of mud to the wall of a cell). R v Henderson and Battley (1984) unauthorised dumping of waste on a building site; jumping on a policeman’s helmet Samuel v Stubbs (1972).
119) A (A Jevenile) v R (1978) – a young football supporter who spat a policeman coat and
120) Morphitis v Salmon (1990) (a scratch on a scaffolding bar) were not considered criminal damage
BURGLARY
121) Steven v Gourley (1859) – a structure of considerable size and intended to be permanent or at least endure for a considerable length of time.
122) B and S v Leathley (1979) – large freezer without wheel connected to electricity supply was considered a building while in Norfolk Constabulary v Seekings and Gould (1986) – a lorry trailer with wheels was not.
123) R v Collins (1972) – effective and substantial entry. R v Brown (1985) – D leaning throw broken window was considered substantial entry R v Ryan (1995) – D whose head and arm trapped inside a building by a window was held to have entered for the purpose of a burglary. Indication of very broad approach to ‘effective’ and/or substantial test established in CollinsR 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.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
124) Lodgen v DPP (1976) – actus reus of assault consists of causing the victim to apprehend immediate physical violence
125) R v Burstow; R v Ireland (1997) – Assault could be committed by words alone.
126) Cole v Turner (1705) – Actual infliction of unlawful physical violence including touching clothes R v Thomas (1985); Collins v Wilcock (1984) – touching in normal everyday life is excluded
127) DPP v Little (1991) – Found that not only common assault and battery were separate offence but also statutory offences by virtue of OAPA 1861
128) R v Miller (1954) – Defined the scope of ABH
129) T v DPP (2003) – Extended bodily harm to v’s momentary loss of consciousness following a kick to the head.
130) R v Chan-Fook (1993) – ABH include psychiatric injury but not mere emotion
131) R v Savage (1992) – The mens rea is either intention or recklessness. D three the content of a beer at V, but the glass slip from her hand and wound the victim and was convicted under s.47.
132) R v Gillard (1988) – Administering means causing to be taken including spraying CS Gas into someone’s face.
133) R v Duffy (1949): – defined provocation Offence (murder, theft, etc).
134) s.1(1) Theft Act 1968: A person who dishonestly (s.2) appropriates (s.3) property(s.4) belong to another(s.5) with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it(s.6) ….. is guilty of theft.
135) R v Turner No. 2 (1971) – the owner who removed his car without informing the garage proprietor
136) 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
137) R v Fernandes (1995) – Treating the property as one’s own to dispose regardless of the other’s right
138) R v Dawson (1976) – when force has been used or threatened in robbery it is a question for the jury to decide
139) R v Hale (1978) – Force used after the appropriate has taken place would not amount to robbery
140) R v Robbinson (1977) – Honest belief in the D ownership of the property could lead to acquittal.
COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY CONSPIRACY
141) Criminal Justice Act 1987
142) R v Griffin (1993) - Definition of attempt – Criminal Attempt Act 1981
143) R v Gueller (1987) – Gone beyond mere preparation not the final act.
144) R v Campbell (1991) D arrested within 10 yards of the post office he intended to rob; 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.
145) 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.
146) R v Shivpuri (1986) – Distributing substances believed to be prohibited drug, but which was not. D was still liable because impossibility is not a defence to a charge of attempt.
INCOHATE OFFENCES
147) Race Relations Board v Applin (1973); Invicta Plastics Ltd v Clare (1976) - incitement may be implied.
148) R v Banks (1873) – It must be communicated
149) R v Ransford (1874) – Where communication fail D is still guilty of attempted incitement.
150) R v Higgins (1801) – there is no need for the incitee act to on the incitement
151) R v Tyrell (1894) – The person that the law is designed to protect cannot be liable for inciting that offence
152) DPP v Armstrong (2000) – it was impossible to incite a police provocateur to provide child pornography
153) R v Fitxmaurice (1983) – impossible offence. Three men willing to rob a non-existing woman carrying wages from the bank.
154) R v Scott (1979) – The agreement must be communicated.
155) R v Anderson (1986) – a defendant can be convicted of conspiracy without having the intention that the agreement be carried out, and secondly it is sufficient mens rea if, and only of the intended to play some part in the agreement course of conduct in furtherance of the criminal purpose contract it to Yip Chiu-Cheung v R (1994) – Where Privy Council ruled that it must be established that each conspirator want the agreement carried out.
156) R v Siracusa (1989) – To play some part would include doing nothing to stop the unlawful activity.
SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE
157) Billam (1986) – Life sentence
158) Millberry, Morgan and Lackenbry -
159) Ragusa (1993) -10 years imprisonment for forced oral sex
160) Townsend (1995) – touching or stroking is sexual assakt
161) Osman (2000) – touching or stroking
162) Cagan and Leak (1979) – causing sexual activity duress
163) DPP v K & B (1997) – underage
164) Lambert (2002) – reverse onus with the presumption of innocence
165) Elbekkay (1995) – Partners impersonation
166) B v DPP (2000); K (2002)- proof of mens rea over age
THEFT RIMINAL DAMAGE
167) Lloyd v DPP(1991) – Damaging a clamp lock was considered a criminal offence
168) Gomez (1993) - set the wide application
169) Gallasso (1993) – affirmed Gomez
170) Mazo (1997) – affirmed Gomez
171) Hinks (2000) – affirmed Gomez – if there is dishonestly there is appropriation
No comments:
Post a Comment