Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Caselist Criminal Case List For Criminal Law
Caselist Criminal Case List For Criminal Law
1
Actus reus.
Acts(General principle)
1. 1. Bratty v. A-G for The actus reus must be voluntary or willed. In this case Lord
Northern Ireland. Denning stated; 'no act is punishable if it is done involuntary:
and an involuntary act in this context means...an act doe by,
the muscles without control by the mind such as a spasm, a
reflex, or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not
conscious of what he is doing such as an act done while
suffering from a concussion or while sleep walking'.
2. 2. Deller. The actus reus must be proved.
Exception
Omissions.
(1).Mere omission (conduct crime).
7. 7. Dytham; These cases illustrate the presence of omissions at common law .
Brown.
10. 10. Dunn Definitions of some crimes specify and imply that only acts are
(assault). sufficient.
(2).Commission by omission (5 duty situations) (result
crime).
11, (a). Close Downes; Duty exists between parents and children.
12, Relation. Gibbons
13 , Parents & and
children. Proctor;
14 ,
Lowe;
15.
Emery and
Russell.
16 (a). Hood; Smith. Duty exists between husband and wife.
and Close
17. Relation.
Husband & wife.
18, (b). Marriot; Instan; Where responsibility of another person has been
19,2 Voluntary Stone and voluntarily assumed, the criminal law imposes a duty
20 assumption of Dobinson; to act on the basis of expectation or reliance.
responsibility. Ruffel.
and
21.
22, (c). R V. Miller In a case where the defendant does an act which
23, Creating a 1954; creates a dangerous situation but then deliberately
24 dangerous R V. Miller or knowingly fails to undo that danger due to which
situation. 1983; Dpp V. the harm is caused.
and
Santa
25.
Bermudez;
Gemma Evans.
26 (d). R V. Pittwood; Applies when through a contract of employment,
and Contractual, R V. Dytham. an employee assumes responsibility for third
27. statutory or parties, such as public.
official duty.
28 (e). R V. Fagan; This doctrine applies where the actus reus and mens
and 'Continuing act Kaitamaki. rea do not coincide in time and the defendant brings
29. doctrine'. about the actus reus without relevant mens rea but
while the harmful result continues, intentionally omits
to remedy them.
30. exception Airedale NHS An omission by the doctors to provide life
Trust V. Bland. support in the best interest of the patient is not
a breach of duty.
31. Causation! Morby. The prosecution must be able to prove that the
defendant’s breach of duty caused the harm.
Causation; Causation is a set of rules by which the courts determine whether the
defendant has caused or contributed significantly to the result as a matter of law. It is a
two stage test: factual and legal causation.
32 (1). R V. White; R 'But for test'; "but for" the defendant's conduct, the result
and Factual V. Dalloway. would not have happened. Defendants 'culpable conduct
33. Causation should be the factual cause of the result.
.
34 Dr. Adams; Dr. Minimal contributions are disregarded. Thus a doctor
and Cox. who accelerates death by minutes or hours of a
35. terminally ill patient by administering him with a high
dose of pain killers for the purposes of palliative
care does not cause death; defendants conduct need
not be the minimal cause of the end result; it has to
be the significant cause of the result.
(2). Legal Causation; Legal causation is more of a test of moral judgment. The defendants
‘culpable conduct’ should be the legal cause of the end result.
36 36 and 37. Hennigan; 'De minimis principle'; the defendants conduct should
and Cato. be more than trivial cause of the end result.
37.
38. 38. Pagett. The defendants conduct should be the significant cause of
the end result.
39. 39. Smith. The defendants conduct should be the substantial cause of
the end result.
40. 40. Benge. The defendant conduct need not be the sole or main cause of the
end result but it has to be an operating cause.
41. 41. Mitchell. 'Casual connection does not have to be direct'.
Third Party interventions (4 situations)
42. (a). Pagett. (1). The defendants acts need not be the sole or main cause
3 Homicide of victim's death.
and violent (2). Defendants act need only contribute 'significantly' to
the result.
offences.
(3). Third party intervention has to be 'free, deliberate and
informed'.
(4). Reasonable act in self-preservation or in pursuance of a
legal duty is not voluntary.
43. (a). Rafferty. (1). Third party intervention has to be 'free, deliberate and
Homicide informed'.
and violent (2). If there is an independent act that supersedes the
initial act then the chain of causation will be broken.
offences.
44. (b). Dalby and (1). A voluntary act of self injection will break the chain of
Drug supply Armstong; causation as self injection of a class A drug, by an informed
cases. adult of sound mind is an autonomous act.
Kennedy
(2). Third party intervention must be 'free, deliberate and
(No.2). informed'.
(c). 2 main (1). The defendants act need not be the only or main cause
Medical rules of death.
cases. (2). The defendants act need not be the sole cause of death
apply
but 'must' be a 'substantial, operating and significant cause'
45 (1) Dyson; Mckechnie. Defendants act does not have to be the
and only or main cause of death.
46.
47, (2). Smith; Malcherek and Steel; The defendants act does not have to be
48, Cheshire (COC not broken). the sole cause of death but it must be
49. substantial, operating and significant
cause.
50. (2). Jordan (COC broken). At the time of death, injuries caused
by the defendant were not substantial,
operating and significant cause. The
cause was the 'palpably wrong'
treatment.
(d). 2 main rules (1). You must take your victims as you find them;
Intervention apply (2). Victim escape cases.
by victim. (potentially
conflicting).
51, (1). Owens v Liverpool Corp Egg shell rule; you must take your
52, (originated); Martin; Blaue; victims as you find them.
54. Holland; Hayward;
55, (1). Blaue; Holland. The victim is under no duty to seek
56. help.
57, (1). Dear, Dhaliwal. Unforeseeable acts by the victim followed
58, by the defendant’s unlawful act, even
59. Wallace (Coc broken). suicide will not break the coc. Applies to
Blue and Holland too.
60, (2). Roberts; Marjoram. Victim’s response must be proportionate to
61. the threat. The test of 'reasonable
forseeability' applies and the victim is
judged through the standards of a
hypothetical on-looker.
62, (2). Williams; Davis. Victim’s abnormal, unreasonable or daft
Mens Rea.
Direct Intention.
73. 73. Grant; Pembliton. The doctrine only applies if the family
of offences is the same.
Criminal Homicide
Murder.
Murder is defined at common law as ‘an unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s
peace with malice aforethought’.
Actus reus Unlawful killing of a Unlawful killing;
human being in the Human being.
Queens’s peace. Queen’s peace.
Mens rea Intention to kill;
Malice aforethought Intention to cause
GBH.
74. (1).Unlawful killing Clegg. Soldiers and police may kill in
(Actus reus) the course of their duties
but they will be liable for
murder if they go beyond
their duty or use excessive
force.
75,76 (1).Unlawful killing Nicklinson; Consent is not a defense to
. (Actus reus) Nicklinson V. UK; liability for criminal homicide
Inglis. by affirmative action; there
is no defense of euthanasia
or of dueling.
77. (1).Unlawful killing Dr. Adams; Dr. Cox. Minimal contributions are
(Actus reus) disregarded. Thus a doctor who
accelerates death by minutes or
hours of a terminally ill patient
but the purpose of palliative
care does not cause death;
defendants conduct need not be
the minimal cause of the end
result; it has to be the
significant cause of the result.
78. (1).Unlawful killing Airedale Hospital Withdrawal of treatment will
(Actus reus) Trustees V. Bland. also not expose the doctors
to liability.
79. (1).Unlawful killing St George’s Health If the victim refuses to have
(Actus reus) care NHS Trust V. S. medical treatment to save
their life, doctors who
accede to that refusal are
not responsible for the
resulting death.
80. (2). Human being A-G’s Ref (No.3 of A fetus is not classified as a
(Actus reus) 1994). human being and hence a
defendant who kills a fetus
cannot be charged with
murder.
81, (2). Human being Poulton; Enouch. If the child has ‘an existence
82. (Actus reus) independent of its mother’
then it is capable of being
murdered. To have such an
existence the child must have
been wholly expelled from its
mother’s body and be alive.
7
92,93,94 (1). Diminished Dunbar; Ahmed Din; In the case of diminished
. responsibility. Bradshaw. responsibility, the burden
of proof is on the
defendant and the
standard of proof is on a
balance of probabilities.
1. Abnormality of
Elements of
mental
Diminished functioning;
responsibility: 2. Recognized
medical
condition;
3. Which provides
an explanation
for the killing
52 (1B) ;
4. Substantially
impaired the
defendant’s
ability 52 (1A).
Diminished Sanderson.
114. In this case the principles
responsibility and developed in Tandy in
intoxication. respect of alcoholism and
diminished responsibilities
have been extended to
Limitations
on the use 2 more
of 1S.55 (6) (a),
limitations.
Involuntary manslaughter.
Constructive manslaughter;
Gross negligence manslaughter;
Reckless manslaughter.
14
(1).Constructive manslaughter.
151.
A-G The test of dangerousness
(4). The unlawful act must
be dangerous (AR). Ref will also be satisfied, even
though the eventual victim
No.3 was not a life in being at
the time of the
of defendant’s unlawful act.
1994.
152. The unlawful and dangerous
(5). The unlawful dangerous Raffer act must be a substantial
act must cause death
(causation) (AR). ty. cause of death but any
‘intervening event’ which
supersedes the defendants
act shall break the coc.
153. (5). The unlawful dangerous Cato. The defendant shall be
act must cause death
liable for manslaughter,
recklessness.
162,
19 The reinstatement of
163,
Introduction. Prentice; Sulman;
killing by gross
164, Adomako; Holloway. negligence arose out of a
and number of appeals
165. against conviction for
manslaughter that were
heard together on the
basis that they raised
identical or sufficiently
similar points of law.
166. (1).The modern law of gross
Introduction. Adomako. negligence manslaughter
derives from this leading case.
It was held that certain
elements had to be satisfied
in order to prove gross
negligence manslaughter.
Firstly, the defendant owed ‘a
duty of care’ towards the
victim. Secondly, the
defendant was in gross
violation of this duty. Thirdly,
death of the victim occurred
as a result of this breach of
duty and lastly, the
defendant’s conduct was
extremely bad in all the
circumstances as to amount in
the jury’s opinion to a crime.
manslaughter, and
21 manslaughter’. the offence of
killing by gross
negligence could be
established
without proof of
mens rea.
(3).Reckless manslaughter.
Psychic assault
180. Introduction. (1). Psychic assault requires no
Venna.
physical contact with the victim and
was defined in the above mentioned
case as; ‘a person is guilty of psychic
assault if he intentionally or
recklessly leads someone to
apprehend the application to his body
of immediate unlawful force/personal
violence’.
1967.
24
(3). If the victim
consented to such force
or threat of force.
196. Mens rea of psychic Venna. The mens rea of psychic
assault is intention or
assault.
recklessness.
Direct Intention.
Moloney. Direct intention is the aim or purpose of
the victim.
Oblique Intention.
Nedrick/Woollin. Nedrick/Woollin test;
(1). A result is intended when it is the
actor's purpose to cause it.
(2). A court or jury may also find that a
result is intended, though it is not the
actor's purpose to cause it, when; (a)
the result is virtually certain
consequence of the act, and (b) the
actor know that it is virtually certain
consequence.
Recklessness.
R V. Venna . Recklessness is now defined
subjectively as 'conscious taking of
an unjustified risk’. Later confirmed
in the cases of Spratt; Savage;
Parmenter.
(2). Battery.
The defendant
unlawfully touched or
Actus Reus of Battery. applied force to the
victim.
defendant was
26 acting in self-
defense.
209. The defendant unlawfully The threat of force
Slingsby. must be unlawful; so,
touched or applied force to
the victim. as with battery, no
offence is
(AR) committed if the
victim consents.
The defendant unlawfully The threat of force
touched or applied force to must be unlawful; so,
S.3 (1) of Criminal
the victim. as with battery, no
Law Act 1976. offence is
(AR) committed if the
show of force was
done for the
purposes of a lawful
arrest.
210. Battery requires an
Battery. Dunn. act; it cannot be
committed by
omission.
requirement of some
27 positive act on part
of the defendant.
211. Certain degree of
Battery. Donelley V. physical contact is
Jackman. believed to be
consented to a part
of everyday life.
E.g.; passengers in a
crowded train.
212, 213,
214 and Battery. Scott V. Shepherd;
For battery, it is not
Martin; Mitchell;
215. necessary that there
Dpp V. K(A) must be a direct
minor. contact between the
defendant and the
victim.
3 cumulative 1. An Assault;
Actus Reus of 2. Occasioning-
‘Actual bodily
requirements: Causation;
harm’.
3.
Actual bodily harm.
It comprises of two (1).Psychic assault;
(1). Assault (AR). alternative forms of wrong (2).Battery.
doing:
216
222, (3).Actual bodily Chan fook; Ireland; Psychiatric injury can also
223 harm (AR). constitute ABH but it has
Burstow.
and to be shown by medical
224. evidence that the harm was
Direct Intention.
Moloney. Direct intention is the aim or purpose of
the victim.
33
Oblique Intention.
Nedrick/Woollin. Nedrick/Woollin test;
(1). A result is intended when it is the
actor's purpose to cause it.
(2). A court or jury may also find that a
result is intended, though it is not the
actor's purpose to cause it, when; (a)
the result is virtually certain
consequence of the act, and (b) the
actor know that it is virtually certain
consequence.
Property Offences.
Theft;
Burglary;
Fraud.
(1). Theft.
and 253.
(1). Property (AR).
(2). Subsection 4 (1) gives us a general
statement to the effect that property:
‘Includes money and all other property,
real or personal, inkling things in action
and other intangible property’
(2). Electricity;
[Exception Kelly]
Subsection 4(2)(a) 4(2): States the general rule that 4(2)(a): The exception
(General rule and land and interests in land cannot be covers cases where an
stolen. executor of a will who,
exceptions)
instead of transferring
the land to the intended
beneficiary, sells it for
their own purposes.
Subsection 4(2)(b) 4(2)(b): Deals with cases where 4(2)(c): Deals with cases
and (c). people steal things from the land where people steal things
which formed part of the land at from the land which
the time of the appropriation. This formed part of the land at
section deals with trespassers. the time of the
appropriation. This section
deals with tenants.
Subsection 4(3): Things that are concerned 4(4): Wild creatures are
4(3) and (4) in this section are not land itself property that cannot be
but things forming part of the stolen. However, tamed
(Exceptions).
land. This section deals with animals are considered as
plants and states that wild plants property that can be
cannot be stolen but if the stolen.
defendant steals the wild plants
for commercial purposes the
requirement of property being
stolen is satisfied.
257,
258 Sharpe (general principle): Dead Kelly; (exception):
Identifying
and human body parts cannot be stolen A corpse or part of a
259. the property as bodies are not personal property. corpse is capable of being
(AR). property within S.4 of
the Theft Act 1968, if it
has acquired different
attributes by virtue of
the application of skill,
such as dissection or
preservation techniques,
Welsh (exception):
Using the same reasoning
as Kelly, a driver was
guilty of theft for
removing his own urine
specimen from a police
station.
260, (1). Appropriation is defined by S.3 (1)
261, of the Theft Act 1968 as ‘Any
262, assumption by a person of the rights of
an owner amounts to an appropriation,
263 (2). Appropriation
and this includes, where he has come by
and (AR).
the property (innocently or not) without
264.
stealing it, any later assumption of a
right to it by keeping or dealing with it
as owner’.
39 (3).Bridges v Hawkesworth;
Hannah v Peel: Lost property
belongs to the loser.
Edwards’s v Ddin:
(2).
The defendant’s actions did not
amount to theft as in contract law
the property in the petrol passed to
the defendant when it was put into
his petrol tank. At the time of
forming the intention not to pay for
the petrol, it already belonged to
him.
(3).Shadrokh-Cigari:
The defendant took and spent the
extra money transferred into his
account; he was guilty of theft on
the basis that it remained property
belonging to another, namely the
issuing bank. See also; A-G Ref (No
1 of 1983); Stalham.
(4).Gilks:
There must be a legal obligation to
return the money as opposed to a
moral obligation.
Requirements of
honesty:
301, 302, (2). Intention to (1). Theft does not require the victim to
303 and permanently deprive be permanently deprived of their
304. the owner of the property. It simply requires the
property (MR). defendant to have this intention at the
precise moment they appropriate the
property.
Burglary.
(1). Entry;
Common features
between the (2). Trespassing;
offences:
(3). Entry to building or part of a
building.
entry.
47
(2). Having entered as a
trespasser attempts to steal or
steals; or attempts to cause GBH
or causes GBH prove ‘Theft or
GBH’.
Fraud.
The Fraud Act 2006 abolishes all the deception offences in the
Theft Act 1968 and 1978.
The Act replaces the deception offences with one basic fraud
offence which can be committed in 3 ways: false representation,
failure to disclose information and abuse of position.
Dishonesty.
Mens rea of
S.3 has the same mens rea as S.2; Fraud by abuse of power (S.4):
fraud by ‘failing there is no requirement that the
to disclose defendant be aware that they are The Law Commission described the type of
under a legal duty of disclosure, relationships intended to be covered by
information’ and although evidence of lack of fraud by abuse of position as follows:
‘fraud by abuse awareness will, no doubt, influence ‘The necessary relationship will be present
the jury’s assessment of between trustee and beneficiary, director
of power’. and company, professional person and
dishonesty.
client, agent and principal, employee and
employer, or between partners. It may
S.4 has the same mens rea as S.2;
arise otherwise, for example within a
there is no requirement that the family, or in the context of voluntary work,
defendant be aware that they are or in any context where the parties are not
under a duty to safeguard the at arm’s length. In nearly all cases where it
other’s financial interests, although arises, it will be recognized by the civil law
evidence of lack of awareness will, as importing fiduciary duties, and any
no doubt, influence the jury’s relationship that is so recognized will
assessment of dishonesty. suffice’.
Dishonesty.
Intention.
What conduct Subsection 11 (2) clarifies what is meant by ‘obtaining services’
and provides a narrow range of conducts:
does
‘Obtaining
(a). They are made available on the basis that payment has been,
services is being or will be made for or in respect of them.
dishonestly’
cover? (b). he obtains them without any payment having been made for or
in respect of them or without payment having been made in full,
and
(c). when he obtains then, he know – (1) that they are being made
available on the basis descried in paragraph (a), or (2) that they
might be, but intends that payment will not be made, or will not
be made in full.
52