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;
59 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Hill v Baxter |
Hypothetical situations where actions would be deemed involuntary. D cannot control the situation so cannot be deemed guilty |
|
|
Broome v Perkins |
D knew he didn't have enough sugar in his blood and this would affect his concentration. Shows a voluntary act and make the D guilty |
|
|
Gibbons v Procotor |
Omission exception - family relationship Ensuring a child is fed |
|
|
Stone v Dobinson |
Omission exception - assumed care Vulnerable person being looked after |
|
|
R v Pittwood |
Omission exception - contractual duty Failure to fulfill employment duties |
|
|
R v Dytham |
Omission exception - official position Higher standards applied if in public office |
|
|
R v Miller |
Omission exception - dangerous situation Not acting to put a dangerous situation right that you created |
|
|
R v Larsonneur |
D didn't want to return to UK but it didn't matter. State of affairs was sufficient for criminal offence |
|
|
R v Winzar |
Police forced D to leave hospital, and arrested him on street for being drunk and on a public highway |
|
|
R v Mohan |
D accelerated toward police officer who was signalling to stop - shows direct intention |
|
|
R v Nedrick |
Introduced virtual certainty test. D didn't foresee death or serious injury as a virtual certainty so charged lowered to manslaughter on appeal from murder |
|
|
R v Woolin |
Provides curent virtual certainty test. D intended to stop baby from crying. D didn't foresee consequences (baby suffering serious injuries and dying) as a virtual certainty so convicted of manslaughter |
|
|
Cunningham |
D didn't realise risk of taking gas meter off the wall would lead to gas leaking to neighbour's house. So was found not guilty
|
|
|
R v Latimer |
Blow to orignal victim was unlawful, but striking second victim was purely accidental. but on appeal D was convicted of wounding the second victim
|
|
|
R v Pembliton |
Intention cannot be transferred to a completely different offence |
|
|
R v Mitchell |
There is no requirement that the unlawful act is directed at the victim |
|
|
R v White |
Although the consequence the D had intended to happen had occured, he didn't cause it to happen so he had not actus reus. (didnt pass the but for test) |
|
|
R v Pagett |
D was more than minimal cause of his girlfriend's death as he used her as a human shield |
|
|
R v Morjoram |
Judge instructed the jury to consider the legal cause - there must be something which could be reasonably foreeseen as a consequence of the unlawful act |
|
|
R v Cheshire |
Chain of causation wasn't broken by the 3rd party (doctors) as they had dont all they could to prevent death from happening
|
|
|
R v Smith |
Chain of causation wasn't broken despite 3rd party (doctors) making the injury worse. Wound was still the substantial cause of death |
|
|
R v Jordan |
Chain of causation was broken as the medical treatment recieved was palpably wrong |
|
|
R v Roberts |
Victim's response to D touching legs in car was foreseeable so D was responsible for her injuries |
|
|
R v Williams |
V's actions was not foreseeable and jury were entitled to consider gravity of threat faced by the V |
|
|
Blaue |
D found guilty of her death because he had to take his victim as he found them - it didn't matter that she refused a blood transfusion which could've saved her life |
|
|
Fagan v MPC (contemporariety rule) |
At first D didn't have the mens rea, but once he knew his car was on police officer's foot and he refused to move, he had the required mens rea. This happened along side the actus reus so both elements were present |
|
|
Thabo Meli |
Actus reus and mens rea were present throughout the series of acts. D still guilty of murder despite not actually killing the V |
|
|
Le Brun |
Unlawful act with its accompanying mens rea weren't direct cause of death, but that act and act causing death were part of the same sequence of events so this was sufficient to be guilty of manslaughter
|
|
|
Harrow LBC v Shah |
D guilty of selling ticket to underage people as offence didn't require mens rea, and it didn't matter that their had done their best to prevent this |
|
|
Callow v Tillstone |
D guilty of offering unfit meat for sale despite taking all reasonable precautions to prevent this from happening |
|
|
Smedleys v Breed |
D found fuilty despite having multiple stages to prevent caterpillar being found in tin of peas |
|
|
Alphacell v Woodward |
D found guilty despite having people working to prevent pipe blockage, and the blockage happening due to unusual weather conditions |
|
|
Sweet v Parsley |
Offence carried a social stigma and would've meant that the D would lose their job, and be sent to prision. Decided that where the offence is truly criminal, it is unlikely that the judge decides the offence is a strict liability |
|
|
R v Ireland (assault) |
Series of silent phone calls can amount to assualt |
|
|
R v Wilson |
Words by themselves can amount to an assualt |
|
|
R v Constanza |
Even though the violence wasn't instantaneous, it was immediate |
|
|
Smith v Woking Police Station
|
V feared that D would break in, so the violence was immediate despite it being through a window |
|
|
Tuberville v Savage |
Words can negate an assault |
|
|
Haystead v DPP |
Battery can be an indirect application of force |
|
|
R v Thomas |
Touching someone's clothes can amount to a battery, despite the touch not being indecent |
|
|
Fagan v MPC (battery) |
Battery can be applied directly to the V or through an instrument |
|
|
Collins v Wilcock |
The slightest touch can amount to a battery |
|
|
DPP v K |
Battery can be indirect, and the D and the V don't have to be in the room at the same time |
|
|
Roberts |
D found guilty of assualt occasioning ABH even though he had not intended any injury or realised there was a risk of injury |
|
|
Savage |
As the D intended to throw beer ove the other women, this was sufficient for the mens rea of an offence. D was reckless as to whether the V feared unlawful force |
|
|
R v Ireland (ABH) |
D caused V to suffer psychiatric injury, which is classed as ABH |
|
|
R v Chan Fook |
Medical evidence is requried to support recognised psychiatric condition. 'Actual bodily harm' were ordinary words. 'Harm' means injury and 'actual' meeans that there must be more than merely trivial hurt or injury |
|
|
R (T) v DPP |
Loss of conciousness, even momentarily, was held to be ABH |
|
|
DPP v Smith |
Cutting someone's hair is ABH |
|
|
Burstow (psychiatric) |
Must be a recognised psychiatric illness, and serious psychiatric injury could be GBH |
|
|
JCC v Eisenhower |
Cut of internal skin is sufficient for s.20 GBH, but internal bleeding isn't |
|
|
Wood |
V's collar bone was broke , but skin was intact so there was no wound (so no actus reus for GBH) |
|
|
DPP v Smith |
GBH means really serious harm |
|
|
Saunders |
It is permissable to tell the jury that GBH means 'serious harm' |
|
|
Dica
|
GBH could be caused by the D infecting unknowing victims with HIV through unprotected sec
|
|
|
Burstow (inflciting GBH) |
Doesn't have to be technical assault or battery, only need to show D's actions led to the consequence of V suffering. Not much difference between actus reus of s.18 and s.20 GBH |
|
|
Parmenter |
For s.20 it is not necessary to prove that D had the intention to cause serious harm or was reckless as to whether serious harm was caused |
|
|
Morrison |
Resisting or preventing the lawful apprenhension or detention of any person is sufficient for s.18 GBH |
|
|
Taylor |
An intention to wound is not sufficient for the mens rea of s.18 |
