Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Cunningham [1957] |
Case Facts - D tore a gas meter from the wall in order to steal money from it. Gas escaped into his neighbour's house and was inhaled by V. - D convicted of an offence against the person, including a mens rea of malice. *This was quashed on appeal. Significance - court set out a test for recklessness: D must foresee the risk. - Cunningham recklessness. |
|
Caldwell [1982] |
Case Facts - D, who had been drinking heavily, started a fire in a hotel as part of an ongoing dispute. - D was convicted of aggravated criminal damage, including mens rea of recklessness as to endangerment of life - HoL upheld this conviction. Significance - 'objective recklessness' = a) foresees the risk (in line with Cunningham); or b) she failed to see a risk that would have been obvious to the reasonable person. - asks if the reasonable person would have foreseen the risk and allows the court to find recklessness on this basis. |
|
Lawrence [1982] |
Case Facts - Case involved reckless driving. Significance - added to the definition of recklessness; the obvious risk must also be serious. |
|
Elliott [1983] |
Case Facts - D (a 14-year-old girl with learning difficulties] started a fire in the garden shed. The fire spread and caused criminal damage. - D was charged with criminal damage. - D claimed that she did not foresee the damage. Significance - D was liable for criminal damage in this case because although she dud not foresee damage - liable using the Caldwell test. *D was liable despite not foreseeing the risk of damage, and despite her age and learning difficulties; would have been impossible. |
|
G [2003] |
Case Facts - D (children aged 11 and 12) set fire to some newspapers under the wheelie bin. They left the fire and it spread to the surrounding buildings. - Convicted of criminal damage, on the basis of their mens rea of recklessness as to the damage. Significance - overrules Caldwell and back to Cunningham. - HoL restated the subjective recklessness test set out in Cunningham. |
|
Gibbons and Proctor (1918) |
Case Facts - D1 (Gibbons) and his lover D2 (proctor) failed to feed D1's 7-year-old child (V), resulting in V's death. - CoA conviction of murder upheld - D1 liable for his omission to feed based on a familial duty owed to V; D2 based on her assumption of a duty (she was in charge of buying food). Significance - omissions liability for murder - both had a duty that they breached. |
|
Adams [1957] |
Case Facts - D, a doctor, was charged with murder having 'eased the passing' of several patients including V with strong pain-relieving drugs. - Crown Court - not guilty. Significance - Devlin J, that doctors are 'entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain and suffering even if measures he takes may incidentally shorted life'. = doctrine of double effect. |
|
Asluwalia [1992] |
Case Facts: D killed her abusive husband (V) following years of violence - she poured petrol over V whilst he was asleep and set fire to it; V died from the burns. D admitted murder, but claimed a defence of provocation. Significance - CoA quashed conviction - LOC defence no longer necessary to be 'sudden and temporary'. |
|
Jewell [2014] |
Case Facts - D killed V, a workmate, after extended period of perceived intimidation by V. - claimed 'shutting down'. Significance - D was charged with murder - the planning that preceded the killing undermined a claim of loss of self-control. |
|
Dawes and Ors [2013] |
Case Facts - D discovered his estranged wife asleep with another man (V), and stabbed V with a kitchen knife, causing death. Significance - court confirmed that that crown court had been wrong on one point (a): although D may have provoked the attack from V, this will only undermine a LOC defence where it is done consciously in order to provide a defence for retaliatory violence. - cannot be in reaction to 'sexual infidelity'. |
|
Clinton [2012] |
Case Facts - D killed his wife following an argument in which she informed him that she was having an affair. Significance - shows poor drafting in s55(6)(c) - CoA allowed appeal - where sexual infidelity is not the sole trigger said or done (as here), it should b allowed to go to the jury alongside all other factors. |
|
Asmelash [2013] |
Case Facts - D and V spent the day drinking and arguing, culminating in D stabbing V twice and killing him. D was charged with murder. Significance - how a reasonable person would act - but not intoxicated. |
|
Downs [2012] |
Case Facts - D killed his partner whilst heavily intoxication, inflicting 60 stab wounds. Significance - acute intoxication was a medically recognised condition, it will not qualify as such within the DR defence. |
|
Dietschmann [2003] |
Case Facts - D became heavily intoxicated and killed V. Depressed. Significance - mental abnormality caused the voluntary intoxication. |
|
Lamb [1967] |
Case Facts - D pointed a loaded revolver at V as a joke. Did not understand how a revolver worked, puller trigger - V killed. Significance - D lacked mens rea, he did not intend or foresee a risk of harm to V or risk of causing V to apprehend harm. - does not satisfy the mens rea of the base offence. |
|
Dawson [1985] |
Case Facts - D and others attempted to rob a petrol station using an imitation gun. V, who died of a heart attack, was not elderly, was in good health. D charged with UAM. Significance - appeal allowed. There was not a foresight of harm, reasonable person would not have foreseen this. |
|
AG's Reference (No3 of 1994) [1998] |
Case Facts - D stabbed his girlfriend, with the intention required for murder, knowing she was pregnant. - The baby (V) was born, but only survived for four months in intensive care before it died. Significance - HoL, D should not have been liable for murder as there can be no double transfer of malice. - D should be liable for UAM. |
|
Adomako [1994] |
Case Facts - D (an anaesthetist) failed to notice that a dude supplying oxygen to his patient (V) had become detached. - D was charged with GNM on the basis hat his conduct fell dramatically below the standard expected of a reasonable anaesthetist. Significance - Adomako test = requires a duty of care between and V; a breach of that duty; that D's acts caused death; and that D's acts were 'gross' in their negligence. |
|
Wacker [2003] |
Case Facts - D was engaged in smuggling 60 illegal immigrants into the UK. D shut the ir vent to the container carrying the immigrants, and 58 of them suffocated. D charged with GNM. Significance - although the joint criminal venture between D and the victims would undermine any duty of care in civil law, this was not the case in criminal law. |
|
Constanza [1997] |
D harassed V over a period of 20 months. V suffered clinical depression as a result. Significance - CoA upheld conviction - caused v to apprehend violence at some point in the immediate future. |
|
Thomas (1985) |
D (a school caretaker) touched the hem of a 12 year olds skirt. |
|
Santana-Bermudez v DPP |
Battery as an omission |
|
Burrell v Harmer |
Tattooed boys 12 and 13. Boys lacked the mental capacity. |
|
Konzani |
Unprotected sex - did not tell them he had his - CONVICTION upheld on inflicting GBH |
|
Richardson |
Not fraud - did not lie about his identity |
|
Jones |
Horseplay - believed that the boy consented. |
|
Roberts |
Jumping out of a car - foreseeable harm |
|
OAPA 1861, s46 |
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm |
|
OAPA 1861, s20 |
wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm |
|
OAPA 1861, s18 |
wounding, or causing grievous bodily harm with intent |