Cases

Front 1

Cunningham [1957]

Back 1

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.

Front 2

Caldwell [1982]

Back 2

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.

Front 3

Lawrence [1982]

Back 3

Case Facts - Case involved reckless driving.

Significance - added to the definition of recklessness; the obvious risk must also be serious.

Front 4

Elliott [1983]

Back 4

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.

Front 5

G [2003]

Back 5

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.

Front 6

Gibbons and Proctor (1918)

Back 6

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.

Front 7

Adams [1957]

Back 7

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.

Front 8

Asluwalia [1992]

Back 8

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'.

Front 9

Jewell [2014]

Back 9

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.

Front 10

Dawes and Ors [2013]

Back 10

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'.

Front 11

Clinton [2012]

Back 11

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.

Front 12

Asmelash [2013]

Back 12

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.

Front 13

Downs [2012]

Back 13

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.

Front 14

Dietschmann [2003]

Back 14

Case Facts - D became heavily intoxicated and killed V. Depressed.

Significance - mental abnormality caused the voluntary intoxication.

Front 15

Lamb [1967]

Back 15

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.

Front 16

Dawson [1985]

Back 16

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.

Front 17

AG's Reference (No3 of 1994) [1998]

Back 17

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.

Front 18

Adomako [1994]

Back 18

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.

Front 19

Wacker [2003]

Back 19

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.

Front 20

Constanza [1997]

Back 20

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.

Front 21

Thomas (1985)

Back 21

D (a school caretaker) touched the hem of a 12 year olds skirt.

Front 22

Santana-Bermudez v DPP

Back 22

Battery as an omission

Front 23

Burrell v Harmer

Back 23

Tattooed boys 12 and 13.

Boys lacked the mental capacity.

Front 24

Konzani

Back 24

Unprotected sex - did not tell them he had his - CONVICTION upheld on inflicting GBH

Front 25

Richardson

Back 25

Not fraud - did not lie about his identity

Front 26

Jones

Back 26

Horseplay - believed that the boy consented.

Front 27

Roberts

Back 27

Jumping out of a car - foreseeable harm

Front 28

OAPA 1861, s46

Back 28

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Front 29

OAPA 1861, s20

Back 29

wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm

Front 30

OAPA 1861, s18

Back 30

wounding, or causing grievous bodily harm with intent