CASES

Question 1

Shaw v DPP

Answer 1

Shaw v DPP (1962)
RULES OF CRIMINAL LAW- Conduct criminalised by judges

Facts of the case:

• D published a ‘ladies directory’ which listed contact details of prostitutes, the services they offered and nude pictures.
• He was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals.
• D appealed on the grounds that an offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals did not exist.
• The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
• The House of Lords found that it was the court’s duty to preserve the public welfare and recognised that there was a common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, as there did not appear to be a statutory offence which covered the situation.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue for the Court was whether there was such an offence and if the court had the discretion to create it.
• The Court is able to create offences in order to adapt to changing standards in life and in regard to the values and morals of society. An offence that is not written in criminal statute can be recognised as a legal charge.

Question 2

Woolmington v DPP

Answer 2

Woolmington v DPP (1935)
RULES OF CRIMINAL LAW- Burden of proof

Facts of the case:

• D’s wife had left him. D asked his wife to come back to him. If she refused, he would commit suicide. For this reason he was carrying a shotgun.
• When D’s wife said she would not return to him, he threatened to shoot himself and brought the gun out to show her that he meant it. As he brought it out, it went off, killing his wife. He claimed this was an accident.
• The judge at the trial told the jury that D had to show the killing of his wife was an accident. This put the burden of proof on D to prove the defence.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue was whether the conviction could be quashed on the grounds that D was denied his right to the presumption of innocence.
• The House of Lords held that the conviction could be quashed. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. - - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the actus reus and mens rea of an offence.

Question 3

Hill v Baxter

Answer 3

Hill v Baxter (1958)
ACTUS REUS- Actus Reus

Facts of the case:

• D drove a great distance part-conscious before having an accident. He was charged with dangerous driving. It was suggested that his way of driving wasn’t intentional, as he had an unknown illness, and so he was not able to control his actions.
• He relied on the defence of automatism.
• He was acquitted by the Magistrates Court.
• The prosecution’s appeal was allowed, and D was then found guilty. It was found that he had fallen part-asleep, something he had substantial control over.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• A voluntary act is required as part of the actus reus.
• D was not in a state of automatism, rather, he fell - asleep, so acted voluntarily in recklessness.
• Driving could be involuntary where the driver lost control of the vehicle because he was stung by a swarm of bees, struck on the head or had a heart attack.

Question 4

R v Mitchell

Answer 4

R v Mitchell (1983)
ACTUS REUS- Actus Reus

Facts of the case:

• D tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man told him off for this. D hit the man and pushed him.
• The man fell back onto others in the queue including an elderly lady who fell and broke her leg. She later died.
• D was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
• He unsuccessfully appealed on the ground that his unlawful act had not been directed at the victim. The Court held that the victim’s death was caused by D’s act.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• An unlawful and dangerous act directed at one person but injuring somebody else can be found to be a charge of assault or manslaughter.
• The actions of the elderly man were involuntary, he had not committed the ‘actus reus’ for any offence.

Question 5

R v Larsonneur

Answer 5

R v Larsonneur (1933)
ACTUS REUS- Actus Reus

Facts of the case:

• D’s passport was marked to say that she had to leave England by a certain date.
• She left England on that date for Ireland, but was deported from Ireland and was sent back to England in Irish custody. She was found in England, and this was after the date that her passport allowed her to be in the country.
• She was convicted under the Aliens Restrictions Act for being in the country as an alien to whom leave to land had been refused.
• D appealed and her conviction was upheld.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue is whether it matters that D did not re-enter England on her own accord, but was forced to do so.
• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and applied strict liability, even though D’s act was not voluntary.

Question 6

R v Gibbins and Proctor

Answer 6

R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions

Facts of the case:

• The father of a seven-year-old girl and his partner neglected and starved the child, who died of starvation.
• The defendants were convicted of murder, as they were both under a duty to take care of the child.
• Although the child did not belong to the partner, she had voluntarily undertaken to look after the girl. She therefore had a duty towards the child.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue facing the Court was whether the ‘actus reus’ of murder could be committed via an omission.
• The Court decided that murder can be committed by a failure to act in circumstances where a duty of care to the victim is imposed on the defendant.

Question 7

R v Stone and Dobinson

Answer 7

R v Stone and Dobinson (1977)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions

Facts of the case:

• S’s sister Fanny came to live with the defendants. She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia.
• The defendants, S and D, took her in and agreed to look after her. Whilst staying with them, the victim became unable to care for herself. D made some efforts to care for her, bringing her food and washing her. However, her attempts were not sustained.
• The victim died of malnutrition and the defendants were charged with manslaughter.

Point of law or Legal Principle

• The issue was whether a duty to act could arise in circumstances where D has voluntarily assumed responsibility to care for another person.
• The Court held that the defendants had assumed responsibility for the victim upon agreeing to look after her.
• Their omission to provide this care and to alert the relevant medical authorities to her condition, made them liable for her death.

Question 8

R v Evans

Answer 8

R v Evans (2009)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions

Facts of the case:

• Evans purchased heroin and gave it to her half-sister, who self-injected the drug.
• Later it became obvious she had overdosed. Neither the mother nor the half-sister tried to get medical help, as they feared getting into trouble. They checked on the victim at intervals throughout the evening and when they awoke the following morning the victim was dead.
• Both the mother and D were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. The mother clearly owed a duty of care to the victim, as she was her daughter.
• D appealed, claiming that she did not owe a duty of care to a sister. The conviction was upheld.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The point of law is whether the appellant owed a duty of care or a duty to act to her sister.
• The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction on the basis that the appellant had created a state of affairs which she knew or ought reasonably to have known was threatening the life of the victim and therefore owed her a duty.

Question 9

R v Dytham

Answer 9

R v Dytham (1979)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions

Facts of the case:

• D was a police officer who was on duty. He stood by whilst three men kicked the victim to death. D took no steps to intervene or to summon help.
• He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public office. He argued that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specifically requires misconduct.
• D’s conviction was upheld.

Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The offence of misconduct in a public office can be committed by an omission.If there is a duty to act, then failure to do so is an offence.

Question 10

R v Miller

Answer 10

R v Miller (1983)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions

Facts of the case:

• D had fallen asleep on a mattress with a lit cigarette in his hand, following his consumption of alcohol.
• D woke up and noticed that the cigarette had started a small fire. Rather than put out the fire or alert the authorities, D left the room and went back to sleep in another room. The fire then caused damage to the property.
• D was convicted of arson. The Court held that his failure to take any steps to mitigate the fire which he caused, such as, alerting the fire brigade or extinguishing the fire, made D guilty.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue was whether D came under a duty to extinguish the fire or alert the fire brigade due to his creation of the dangerous situation.
• An omission can be treated as ‘actus reus’ if a person creates a situation in which harm to a person or property will occur, and he or she intentionally or recklessly fails to take steps to prevent the harm.
• The House of Lords pointed out that the person who has created a dangerous situation is only expected to take reasonable steps. They do not have to put themselves at risk.

Question 11

DPP v Santana-Bermúdez

Answer 11

DPP v Santana-Bermúdez (2003)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions

Facts of the case:

• Prior to being searched by a police officer, D was asked whether they had any needles or sharp objects in their possession. D said no, knowing he did in fact have a needle in his pocket.
• The police officer was stabbed by the needle in D’s pocket and was injured.
• D appealed his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He argued that he had not committed any positive act which caused the police officer’s injury. The Crown Court accepted D’s appeal.
• The DPP appealed to the High Court, seeking a clear answer on how a case such as this should be dealt with in the future.
• The Court held that D had placed the police officer in a dangerous situation, and his omission to correct his statement and avert the dangerous situation constituted the ‘actus reus’ of the offence.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The Court confirmed and applied the dangerous acts doctrine from R v Miller.
• Therefore, where D creates a dangerous situation and omits to avert the consequences of his actions, they are held responsible for any reasonably foreseeable harm which occurs.

Question 12

Airedale NHS v Bland

Answer 12

Airedale NHS v Bland (1993)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions

Facts of the case:

• Bland was injured in the Hillsborough disaster when he was seventeen years old and was left in a persistent vegetative state. He remained in this state for over two years with no sign of improvement, whilst being kept alive by life support machines.
• The doctors that were treating Bland were granted approval to remove the tube that was feeding him.
• This decision was then appealed to the House of Lords by the Solicitor acting on Bland’s behalf.
• The appeal was dismissed. On the basis that there was no potential for improvement, the treatment Bland was receiving was deemed not to be in his best interests.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The Court was asked whether it would amount to an unlawful killing for the medical professionals to remove Bland’s feeding tube, given this would inevitably lead to his death.
• Treatment that is necessary to sustain life can be withdrawn from a patient who cannot give informed consent if withdrawal is seen as being in the best interests of the patient. This applies to situations where the patient is unable to express any wishes as to their treatment.
• Euthanasia by a positive act terminating the patient’s life remains unlawful.

Question 13

R v Khan and Khan

Answer 13

R v Khan and Khan (1998)
ACTUS REUS- Omissions

Facts of the case:

• The two defendants sold heroin to a 15 year old girl at their flat. This was the first time she had used heroin and she used twice the amount generally used by an experienced user.
• She took the heroin in the presence of the Ds. She fell into a coma and they left the flat leaving the girl alone when it was clear that she required medical assistance.
• They returned to the flat the following day and found her dead.
• They were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter and appealed arguing that a drug dealer does not owe a duty of care to summon medical assistance to his client. The convictions were quashed.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The Court of Appeal did not rule out the possibility of a duty of care being owed by drug dealers.
• It stated ‘obiter dicta’ that duty situations could be extended to other areas.

Question 14

R v Pagett

Answer 14

R v Pagett (1983)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• D took his sixteen-year-old pregnant girlfriend from her home by force. He then held the girl hostage. Police called on him to surrender.
• D came out, armed with a shotgun, and shot at police who were attempting to arrest him. D was holding his girlfriend in front of him as a shield. The officers returned fire and the girl was killed.
• D was convicted of manslaughter. He appealed against the manslaughter conviction on the issue of causation. The manslaughter conviction was upheld.

Point of law or Legal Principle:
- D was guilty because the consequence, his girlfriend getting killed, would not have happened ‘but for’ D’s conduct, using his girlfriend as a shield. D’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence.

Question 15

R v Hughes

Answer 15

R v Hughes (2013)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• The victim had self-administered drugs and then set off driving in their car. D’s driving was faultless. There was nothing wrong with his driving, other than his lack of insurance.
• D and the victim collided, and the victim was killed. It was proven in court that it would have been impossible for D to have prevented the victim’s death. D was convicted of causing death while in control of a car without a valid driving licence or uninsured under s.3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
• D appealed this conviction up to the Supreme Court. - - He argued that he did not commit a culpable act which caused the death of the victim.
• Under s.3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988, D must have committed a culpable act which causes the death of the victim. Therefore, his appeal was granted and his conviction quashed.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue was whether a motorist whose driving was faultless could be said to have caused the death of the victim.
• The Supreme Court held that factual causation is not necessarily enough on its own for liability. It distinguished between ‘cause’ in the ‘but for’ sense without which a consequence would not have occurred, and ‘cause’ in the sense that something of something which was a legally effective cause of that consequence. D was the ‘cause’ in the ‘but for’ sense, but it was not enough for it to be a legally effective cause.

Question 16

R v Kimsey

Answer 16

R v Kimsey (1996)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• D was involved in a high-speed car chase with a friend. She lost control of the car and the other driver was killed in the crash.
• D was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. The judge told the jury that they did not have to be sure that the appellant’s driving ‘was the principal, or a substantial cause of the death, as long as you are sure that it was a cause and that there was something more than a slight or a trifling link’.
• On appeal, it was argued that it was wrong to say that the cause did not have to be a substantial cause. The - - Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Applying the - case of R v Hennigan, the court found that the contribution of the dangerous driving to the death only had to be more than ‘de minimis’.

Point of law or Legal Principle:
- D can be guilty if their conduct was more than a ‘minimal’ cause of the consequence. D’s conduct need not be a substantial cause, the conduct must be more than ‘de minimis’.

Question 17

R v Blaue

Answer 17

R v Blaue (1975)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• D stabbed an 18 year old girl four times when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him.
• She was a practising Jehovah’s witness and refused to have a blood transfusion which would have saved her life.
• D was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and appealed arguing that the girl’s refusal to accept the blood transfusion was a ‘novus actus interveniens’ breaking the chain of causation.
• D’s conviction was upheld. The stab wound and not the girl’s refusal to accept medical treatment was the operating cause of death.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue was whether the victim’s decision, in line with her personal beliefs, to refuse life-saving medical intervention was sufficient to break the chain of causation between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s death.
• The Court of Appeal stated that D must take their victim as they find them, and this includes the characteristics and beliefs of the victim and not just their physical condition.

Question 18

R v Smith

Answer 18

R v Smith (1959)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• D, a soldier, got in a fight at an army barracks and stabbed another soldier.
• The medical professionals who first looked at the victim failed to notice the injury and they dropped him twice when moving him to the medical station. The next medial professional then failed to grasp the seriousness of the victim’s injury and prescribed the wrong treatment.
• D was convicted of murder and appealed contending that if the victim had received the correct medical treatment he would not have died.
• D’s appeal was dismissed, and his conviction was upheld. The Court of Appeal held that the death would still be attributed to the defendant if the original injury inflicted remained an operating and significant cause of death.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue was whether the negligence on the part of the doctors was capable of breaking the chain of causation between D’s action in stabbing the victim, and his ultimate death.
• D’s action will remain the legal cause where the original injury caused remains an operating and significant cause. This is the case even if other causes, such as medical negligence, contribute to the injury.

Question 19

R v Cheshire

Answer 19

R v Cheshire (1991)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• D shot a man in the stomach and thigh. The man was taken to hospital where he was operated on and developed breathing difficulties. The hospital gave him a tracheotomy.
• Weeks later his wounds were healing and no longer life threatening, however, he continued to have breathing difficulty and died from complications arising from the tracheotomy.
• D was convicted of murder and appealed. His conviction was upheld despite the fact that the wounds were not the operative cause of death. Intervening medical treatment could only exclude the responsibility of D if it was so independent of D’s act and so potent in causing the death, that the jury regarded D’s acts as insignificant.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue was whether D’s acts of shooting the victim had caused the death or whether the chain of causation was broken by the negligent medical treatment that the victim had received following being injured by the shooting.
• The Court clarified when medical treatment constitutes a supervening act which breaks the chain of causation. The treatment provided must be so independent of the defendant’s act and so potent in causing the death that the jury regard the defendant’s acts as insignificant.

Question 20

R v Jordan

Answer 20

R v Jordan (1956)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• D stabbed the victim, who died days later in hospital. D was found guilty of the victim’s murder.
• On appeal, it was shown that at the time of the victim’s death the original stab wound had substantially healed, and the victim had in fact died from an allergic reaction to antibiotics given to him whilst in hospital. - - - The medical professionals should have noticed D’s allergic reaction.
• The Court of Appeal quashed D’s conviction for murder. It decided that the causal link between the D’s action and the victim’s death had been broken by the grossly negligent medical treatment. It was held that this was the operative cause of his death.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The question for the Court was whether the hospital’s negligent medical treatment of the victim constituted an intervening act.
• The case establishes that in extreme circumstances a medical intervention will break the chain of causation. - - This occurs in cases where the medical intervention is grossly negligent.

Question 21

R v Malcherek

Answer 21

R v Malcherek (1981)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• D stabbed his wife in the stomach, she was hospitalised and had surgery to remove a blood clot. - - During the operation her heart stopped beating before the doctors could reinstate it. She suffered irreparable brain damage.
• She was placed on a life support machine, before it was turned off as there was no chance of her improving. D was still charged with murder.
• The medical treatment that was given was considered normal and in line with approved medical practice. The judge withdrew the issue of causation from the jury as it was clear the initial injuries inflicted were the cause of death. There was no evidence that the original injuries inflicted stopped being the operative cause of death.

Point of law or Legal Principle:
- Switching off a life-support machine by a doctor when it has been decided that the victim is brain-dead does not break the chain of causation.

Question 22

R v Roberts

Answer 22

R v Roberts (1972)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• After a party, D gave the female victim a lift in his car. - - The victim and D had not met before. D began making sexual advances towards the victim which were rejected before attempting to pull off her coat.
• The victim then opened the door and jumped out of the moving vehicle sustaining injuries as a result.
• D was convicted of actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He appealed, and the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. It held that the test for whether a victim’s own acts were not to be considered capable of breaking the chain of causation was whether the act was a natural consequence or result of what the assailant did or said.

Point of law or Legal Principle:

• The issue was whether D was responsible both in fact and in law for the injuries caused by her leaving the moving car.
• If D causes the victim to react in a reasonably foreseeable way, then any injury to the victim will be considered to have been caused by D.

Question 23

R v Marjoram

Answer 23

R v Marjoram (2000)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• Several people, including D, shouted abuse and kicked the door of the victim’s hostel room. They eventually forced the door open.
• The victim then fell, or possibly jumped, from the window of the room and suffered serious injuries.
• The justices followed the decision in R v Roberts, and D’s conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The act of the victim will not break the chain of causation where it is the natural result of the defendant’s actions and where a reasonable person in the circumstances of the defendant could have foreseen the victim’s injury as a possible outcome.

Question 24

R v Dear

Answer 24

R v Dear (1996)
ACTUS REUS- Causation

Facts of the case:

• D’s daughter accused a man of sexually abusing her. D went after the victim and repeatedly slashed him with a Stanley knife.
• The victim received medical treatment but later re-opened his wounds in what was thought to be a suicide and died two days after the initial attack.
• D was convicted of murder. He claimed a break in the chain of causation, as the victim had committed suicide following the attack.
• D’s conviction was upheld. The wound was still an operating and substantial cause of death.

Point of law or Legal Principle:
- The court ruled that even if a victim aggravates his wounds sufficiently to cause otherwise avoidable death, the chain of causation is not broken.

Question 25

R v Moloney

Answer 25

R v Moloney (1985) MENS REA- Foresight of consequence Facts of the case: - D and his stepfather were engaged in a drunken competition to see which of them could load a shotgun faster than the other. D won, and was then challenged by his stepfather to fire the gun. D pulled the trigger but in his drunken state he did not believe the gun was aimed at the stepfather. He killed his stepfather instantly. Evidence was produced that the pair had a good relationship. - D was charged with murder and convicted. He appealed and the Court of Appeal allowed appeal to the House of Lords. - The issue was whether the jury could infer intent if they were satisfied that D foresaw that death or serious injury was a natural consequence of his act. - D’s conviction for murder was substituted for manslaughter. Point of law or Legal Principle: - It was held that D’s foresight of the natural consequences of their actions is evidence of intention, not intention in itself. This part of the judgement is still law. - Lord Bridge stated that jurors should consider 2 questions: - Whether death/serious bodily harm was a natural consequence of D´s act. - Whether D foresaw that consequence as being a natural result of that act. - These are known as the Moloney guidelines.

Question 26

R v Hancock and Shankland

Answer 26

R v Hancock and Shankland (1986) MENS REA- Foresight of consequence Facts of the case: - Ds were miners who were on strike. They tried to prevent another miner from going to work by pushing a concrete block from a bridge on to the road along which he was being driven to work in a taxi. Block killed the driver. - Ds charged with murder. The trial judge provided a direction to the jury based on Lord Bridge’s position in - R v Moloney, telling the jury to ask themselves the 2 questions. - Issue was whether the direction given in R v Moloney on oblique intent was misleading. - Jury convicted Ds of murder. Court of Appeal quashed this conviction, this was upheld by the HoL. Point of law or Legal Principle: - It was held that Maloney's guidelines were misleading as they didn´t refer to the degree of probability required. - They should include a reference to the degree of probability and in particular an explanation that the greater the probability of a consequence the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and that if that consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is that that consequence was also intended.

Question 27

R v Nedrick

Answer 27

R v Nedrick (1986) MENS REA- Foresight of consequence Facts of the case: - D held a grudge against a woman. He went to her house in the middle of the night, poured paraffin through her letter box and set light to it. A child died in the fire. - D was convicted of murder but Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and was substituted for a manslaughter conviction. - Issue facing the court was whether: - Jury is entitled to infer the necessary intention for the mens rea of murder in where it is ‘highly probable’ that the D´s actions cause death/serious bodily harm. - D must foresee that these consequences are ‘highly probable’ as a result of his actions. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Jury entitled to infer the necessary intention if victim’s death/serious bodily harm was virtually certain as a consequence of the D’s actions and D appreciated this was the case. Both of these elements must be satisfied for the necessary intention to be inferred. - Jury should ask themselves 2 questions: - How probable was the consequence of D´s act. - Did D foresee that consequence.

Question 28

R v Woollin

Answer 28

R v Woollin (1998) MENS REA- Foresight of consequence Facts of the case: - D threw his 3-month-old baby towards his pram which was against the wall. Baby suffered head injuries and died. He was charged with murder and convicted. - Jury could infer intention if the consequence was a virtual certainty and the D had realised this. - When referred to Court of Appeal the conviction was substituted with manslaughter. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The House of Lords amended one word in the Nedrick test; rather than intention being inferred by a positive answer to the two questions, it only allows the jury to find intention. - This definition causes some problems, as there are 2 readings of the Woollin direction. - 1st: foresight of consequence constitutes the requisite intention for the mens rea of murder. (Re A (2000)) - 2nd: foresight of consequence is merely evidence of intention. (Matthews and Alleyne (2003))

Question 29

Matthews and Alleyne

Answer 29

Matthews and Alleyne (2003) MENS REA- Foresight of consequence Facts of the case: - Ds dropped the victim from a bridge into a river, knowing the victim couldn´t swim. They watched him ‘dog paddle’ towards the bank but left before seeing whether he reached safety. The victim drowned. Ds were charged with murder. - The trial judge directed the jury that intention to kill could be proved either by direct intention to kill or by Ds’ appreciation that the victim’s death was a virtual certainty, together with the fact that Ds didn't intend to save the victim. Ds appealed, arguing this was a misdirection. - The issue was whether the judge erred when directing the jury. - Court of Appeal found that Ds’ murder conviction was safe, but the trial judge’s direction was incorrect. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Woollin meant that foresight of consequence isn’t intention. It is a rule of evidence. - If jury decides that D foresaw the virtual certainty of death/serious bodily harm, then they are entitled to find intention but they don’t have to do so.

Question 30

R v Cunningham

Answer 30

R v Cunningham (1957) MENS REA- Subjective recklessness Facts of the case: - D ripped a gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money in the meter. This caused gas to escape. - The gas seeped through small cracks in the wall to the neighbouring property where a woman was poisoned by the gas. - He was charged under s 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 of ‘maliciously’ administering a noxious thing. - He appealed on the grounds that ‘maliciousness’ implies a foresight of consequence that he lacked, and his conviction was quashed. Point of Law or Legal Principle: - It was held that “maliciously” when indicating mens rea means that D must either intend the consequence or realise that there was a risk of the consequence and still taking that risk (subjective recklessness).

Question 31

Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell

Answer 31

Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell (1981) MENS REA- Subjective recklessness Facts of the case: - D had worked in a hotel and during this employment he developed a grudge against the hotel owner. He got very drunk and started a fire on the hotel premises. No one came to harm however as the fire was quickly extinguished. - D was convicted under s.1(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971 which requires that D intended an endangerment to life or was reckless as to whether life was endangered. - D appealed on the grounds that he had been so intoxicated that he had not contemplated the risk or possibility of endangering life as a result of his actions and therefore had neither intended to endanger life, nor had he been reckless as to that risk. - His conviction was upheld Point of law or Legal Principle: - HoL held that recklessness covered 2 situations: where D had realised the risk (subjective recklessness) where D had not thought about the possibility of any risk but an ordinary person would have (objective recklessness)

Question 32

R v G and Another

Answer 32

R v G and Another (2003) MENS REA- Subjective recklessness Facts of the case: - The two appellants, aged 11 and 12, went camping for a night without their parents’ permission. The boys found some old newspapers outside the Co-op which they lit with a lighter and then threw them under a wheelie bin. They then left without putting them out assuming they would naturally burn out. In fact the burning newspapers set light to the wheelie bin and the fire spread to the Co-op shop and caused over £1m of damage. - Jury was directed under the objective test contained in Caldwell that failure to give thought to an obvious risk was sufficient mens rea for the offence and the jury convicted the defendants. - Issue facing the court was whether a defendant could be properly convicted under CDA 1971 s1 on the basis that he was reckless as to whether property was damaged when no thought was given to the risk, and they did not think about the risk due to age or personal characteristics. - On appeal the HoL quashed the conviction. Point of law or Legal Principle: - HoL overruled decision in Caldwell holding that D could not be guilty unless he had realised the risk and decided to take it. - Approved definition of recklessness set out in the Draft Code that a person is reckless if he was aware of a risk and still took it.

Question 33

R v Adomako

Answer 33

R v Adomako (1994) MENS REA- Negligence Facts of the case: - Leading case on ‘gross negligence’ - D was an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an eye operation. - During the operation an oxygen pipe became disconnected and the patient died. D failed to notice or respond to obvious signs of disconnection. - The jury convicted him of gross negligence manslaughter by breach of duty. - Appeal was dismissed by HoL Point of law or Legal Principle - HoL set out that: - existence of a duty of care by D towards the victim - act or omission in breach of that duty - which creates a serious and obvious risk of death - and causes death - amount to gross negligence: conduct so bad it must be criminal conduct

Question 34

R v Latimer

Answer 34

R v Latimer (1886) MENS REA- Transferred malice Facts of the case: - D was in an argument with another in a pub. The argument escalated and the defendant attempted to hit the other man with his belt, but missed. - D’s blow was instead redirected and hit a woman standing next to the intended victim. The woman was severely injured. - D was prosecuted for unlawful and malicious wounding, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 20. - Issue facing the court was whether the mens rea of the offence could be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim with the actus reus being already directed at the actual victim. Point of law or Legal Principle - The court held that it is possible to use the doctrine of transferred malice. Therefore, D can be guilty of an offence if they intended to commit a similar crime but against a different person.

Question 35

R v Gnango

Answer 35

R v Gnango (2011) MENS REA- Transferred malice Facts of the case: - D, Gnango, was searching for ‘Bandana Man’ armed with a gun in a car park. ‘Bandana Man’ then entered the car park and began firing shots at the D, who fired back. - A shot fired by Bandana Man, aimed at Gnango, shot and killed a woman who was walking through the car park. - Bandana Man was clearly guilty of victim’s murder using the doctrine of transferred malice. Bandana Man intended to cause the death of D when he fired the gun, and this malice could be transferred to the actual death of the innocent woman. - The issue facing the court was whether D was also guilty of the murder under the doctrine of transferred malice. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The Court confirmed that the doctrine of transferred malice applies “to secondary parties as it does to principal offenders. Thus, as by agreeing to the shoot-out with Bandana Man he had aided and abetted his attempt to murder him, D was guilty of the murder.

Question 36

R v Thabo Meli

Answer 36

R v Thabo Meli (1954) MENS REA- Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea Facts of the case: - Ds were convicted of murder. They had planned to kill a man and then make it look like an accident. - They took him to a hut and beat him over the head. - - - Believing that he was dead, they then took his body to a cliff and threw it off. However, he died from exposure of being left at the bottom of the cliff and not from the blow to the head. - They appealed on the grounds that the actus reus and mens rea of the crime did not coincide. When they threw him off the cliff, there was no mens rea as they could not intend to kill someone they believed was already dead. - Convictions upheld. The act of beating him and throwing him off the cliff was one continuing act. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The actus reus of causing death started with the victim being struck on the head and continued until he died of exposure. It is sufficient for the prosecution to establish that at some time during a chain of events D has acted with the requisite mens rea.

Question 37

R v Church

Answer 37

R v Church (1965) MENS REA- Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea Facts of the case: - A fight developed during which the Dknocked the victim unconscious. He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no effect. He believed she was dead and threw her body into a river. - Evidence revealed that the cause of death was drowning and she therefore had been alive when he threw her into the river. - D was convicted of manslaughter and his conviction upheld. Point of law or Legal Principle: - As in R v Thabo Meli (1954), the mens rea of an offence only needs to be present at one point during the actus reus for it to be sufficient .

Question 38

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Answer 38

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986) MENS REA- Continuing Act Facts of the case: - A policeman was directing D to park his car. D accidentally drove onto the policeman's foot. The policeman shouted at him to get off. - D refused to move and was convicted of assaulting a police officer. - D appealed arguing that at the time of the actus reus, the driving onto the foot, he lacked the mens rea of any offence since it was purely accidental. When he formed the mens rea, he lacked the actus reus as he did nothing and an omission cannot establish an assault. - Conviction upheld. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The driving on to the foot and remaining there was part of a continuing act. - Where there is a continuing act for the actus reus and at some point while the act is going on D has the necessary mens rea, the 2 coincide and D will be guilty.

Question 39

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd

Answer 39

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986) STRICT LIABILITY- Concept of strict liability Facts of the case: - D, a pharmacist was convicted of an offence under s.58 of the Medicines Act of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. - D had allowed prescription drugs to be supplied on forged prescriptions where a doctor’s signature had been copied. - D had no knowledge of the forged signatures and believed the prescriptions were genuine. - Conviction upheld by HoL. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The offence was one of strict liability and the conviction was upheld. - They concluded that the omission to refer to mens rea in s.58 must therefore have been deliberate and so there was no need to prove it.

Question 40

R v Larsonneur (strict liability)

Answer 40

R v Larsonneur (1933) STRICT LIABILITY- Absolute liability Facts of the case: - D’s passport was marked to say that she had to leave England by a certain date. - She left England on that date for Ireland, but was deported from Ireland and was sent back to England in Irish custody. She was found in England, and this was after the date that her passport allowed her to be in the country. - She was convicted under the Aliens Restrictions Act for being in the country as an alien to whom leave to land had been refused. - D appealed and her conviction was upheld. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The issue is whether it matters that D did not re-enter England on her own accord, but was forced to do so. - The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and applied strict liability, even though D’s act was not voluntary.

Question 41

Winzar v chief Constable of Kent

Answer 41

Winzar v chief Constable of Kent (1983) STRICT LIABILITY- Absolute liability Facts of the case: - D was taken into a hospital on a stretcher, but then was found to be drunk and was told to leave. D refused to leave the hospital. - Eventually , the police came over and took D to the highway outside the hospital. - D was charged with being ‘found drunk’ in the highway. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Court charged D with ‘being drunk’ in the highway under the Licensing Act 1872. It didn’t matter that the police had left him there.

Question 42

R v Prince

Answer 42

R v Prince (1875) STRICT LIABILITY- Strict liability Facts of the case: - D was convicted of taking an unmarried girl under the age of 18 out of the possession of her father without the father’s consent. - The girl had told him she was 18 and D reasonably believed that that was her age. - His conviction was upheld on the basis that knowledge that the girl was under the age of 16 was not required in order to establish the offence. It was sufficient to show that D intended to take the girl out of the possession of her father. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The issue in question was whether the court is required to read a mens rea requirement into a statute which is silent as to the mens rea for an offence, and therefore if D’s reasonable belief was a defence to the offence. - Decided that where a statute is silent as to the mens rea for an offence, the court is not bound to acknowledge it. The offence was one of strict liability as to age, therefore a mens rea of knowledge of the girl’s actual age was not required to establish the offence.

Question 43

R v Hibbert

Answer 43

R v Hibbert (1869) STRICT LIABILITY- Strict liability Facts of the case: - D met a girl aged 14 on the street. He took her to another place where they had sexual intercourse. - D was acquitted of the offence as it was not proved that he knew the girl was in possession of her father. - Even though the age aspect of the offence was one of strict liability, mens rea was required for the removal aspect, and in this case intention wasn’t proved. Point of law or Legal Principle: - As in Prince (1875), mens rea may be required for 1 part of the offence, but another may be one of strict liability.

Question 44

Callow v Tillstone

Answer 44

Callow v Tillstone (1900) STRICT LIABILITY- No fault Facts of the case: - A butcher was convicted of selling unfit meat despite the fact that he had had the meat certified as safe by a vet before the sale. - His conviction was upheld as the offence was one of strict liability and it mattered not how diligent he had been to ensure the safety of the meat. Point of law or Legal Principle: - D can be convicted of a strict liability offence if their voluntary act inadvertently caused a prohibited consequence, even though D was totally blameless in respect of the consequence.

Question 45

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah

Answer 45

Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) STRICT LIABILITY- No 'due diligence' defence Facts of the case: - D‘s owned a business where lottery tickets were sold. - They had told the staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16, and that if there was any doubt of the customer’s age, they should ask for proof of age, and if still in doubt, they should refer the matter to the D’s. - One of the staff members sold a ticket to a 13-year-old without asking proof of age, as he believed he was over 16. - D’s were charged with selling a lottery ticket to someone under 16 under the National Lottery Act 1993. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Although D’s took all reasonable steps to prevent the offence, they were still guilty bc the offence was one of strict liability and there was no ‘due diligence’ defence available.

Question 46

Cundy v Le Cocq

Answer 46

Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) STRICT LIABILITY- No defence of mistake Facts of the case: - D was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person under the Licensing Act 1872. - D appealed on the grounds that he was unaware of the customer's drunkenness. - Appeal dismissed and conviction was upheld. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The section of the act for that offence was silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of D. - It was therefore taken that the omission to refer to mens rea was deliberate and the offence was one of strict liability. - There is no defence of mistake available for strict liability offences.

Question 47

Sherras v De Rutzen

Answer 47

Sherras v De Rutzen (1895) STRICT LIABILITY- No defence of mistake Facts of the case: - D was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty under the Licensing Act 1872. - It was customary for police officers to wear an armlet whilst on duty but this constable had removed his. - D therefore believed he was off duty. - He was convicted and appealed contending that knowledge that the officer was on duty was a requirement of the offence. Conviction quashed. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Court held the offence wasn’t one of strict liability and accordingly a genuine mistake provided D with a defence.

Question 48

Gibson v Sylveire

Answer 48

Gibson v Sylveire (1991) STRICT LIABILITY- Strict liability in common law Facts of the case: - D had created an art exhibit of a model head with earrings made out of freeze-dried real human foetuses. He wanted to highlight how casually abortions were thought off. - D’s were convicted of outraging public decency. - As a strict liability offence, mens rea didn’t need to be proved. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Key case in illustrating one of the 3 existing strict liability common law offences: outraging public decency.

Question 49

Sweet v Parsley

Answer 49

Sweet v Parsley (1969) STRICT LIABILITY- Interpretation by the courts Facts of the case: - D rented a farmhouse to students. - Police found cannabis at the farmhouse and D was charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. - D didn’t know that cannabis was being smoked there. - Decided she wasn’t guilty as the court presumed that the offence required mens rea. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Where an Act of Parliament doesn’t include any words indicating mens rea, the judges will start by presuming that all criminal offences require mens rea. - They will then look at a number of points to decide whether the offence should become one of strict liability.

Question 50

Alphacell v Woodward

Answer 50

Alphacell v Woodward (1972) STRICT LIABILITY- Interpretation by the courts Facts of the case: - D, a factory owner, was convicted of causing polluted matter to enter a river under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. - The offence related to an underground pipe which had become disconnected due to a blockage. - D was unaware of the pollution and it was not alleged that they had been negligent. - The conviction was upheld. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Held to be an offence of strict liability since it was of the ‘utmost public importance’ that rivers should not be polluted. - Example of quasi-criminal offence- regulatory offences not considered ‘truly criminals’ and therefore more likely to be interpreted as being of strict liability.

Question 51

B v DPP

Answer 51

B v DPP (2000) STRICT LIABILITY- Interpretation by the courts Facts of the case: - A boy aged 14 was charged with an offence of inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency, contrary to the Indecency with Children Act 1960. - He had sat next to a 13 year old girl on a bus and repeatedly asked her to perform oral sex with him. She refused. The boy believed the girl was over 14. - D’s conviction was quashed. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Where an offence carries a penalty of imprisonment, it is more likely to be considered ‘truly criminal’ and so less likely to be interpreted as an offence of strict liability. - It was held that mens rea was needed for this offence as it was more serious. - The offence in this case carried a max penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment.

Question 52

R v Blake

Answer 52

R v Blake (1997) STRICT LIABILITY- Interpretation by the courts Facts of the case: - D was a disc jockey convicted of using a station for wireless telegraphy without a license. - He didn’t know he was transmitting. - Convicted on the basis that the offence was one of strict liability. His appeal was dismissed. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The Court applied the principles in Gammon and found that, though the presumption in favour of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was, therefore, “truly criminal”, the offence dealt with issues of serious social concern in the interests of public safety.

Question 53

Environment Agency v Brock PLC

Answer 53

Environment Agency v Brock PLC (1998) STRICT LIABILITY- Arguments against Facts of the case: - Leakage was caused by a hidden defect in a seal. Leak caused pollution. - Company was liable for the leak. Point of law or Legal Principle: - D’s can be guilty of a happening caused by a risk of which they were unaware. - Case demonstrates one of the arguments against strict liability: guilty even unaware of the risk.

Question 54

Lim Chin v The Queen

Answer 54

Lim Chin v The Queen (1963) STRICT LIABILITY- Interpretation by the courts Facts of the case: - D had been convicted of acting contrary to an order prohibiting his entry into Singapore, despite his ignorance of the order’s existence - The ordinance was aimed at preventing illegal immigration. However, D had no knowledge of the prohibition. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Held that the imposition of strict liability could only really be justified where it would actually succeed in the enforcement of the regulation. If it didn’t, then it shouldn’t be of strict liability. - Case considers final point of Gammon test.

Question 55

R v G

Answer 55

R v G (2008) STRICT LIABILITY- Arguments against Facts of the case: - D was a 15-year-old boy who had consensual sex with a girl he thought was aged 15. In fact, she was only aged 12, but agreed she had told him she was 15. - D was prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for the offence of rape of a child under 13. - As it was a strict liability offence and his belief of the girl’s age was irrelevant, he pleaded guilty. - Case was appealed on 2 points: - Whether the fact that it was a strict liability offence violated Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human rights (fair trial) - Whether it also violated s (2) of Article 6 (presumption of innocence). Point of law or Legal Principle: - Court decided there was no breach of either, as Article 6 didn’t concern the content of the law and it didn’t day what the mental elements of the offence should be. - D was guilty of a very serious offence even though he genuinely believed (and on reasonable grounds) that the girl was his age. - Case demonstrates one of the arguments against strict liability: contrary to human rights.

Question 56

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station

Answer 56

Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus Reus of assault Facts of the case: - D broke into a garden and looked through the victim’s bedroom window on the ground floor at about 11pm one evening. - V was terrified and thought D was about to enter the room, although D was outside the house and no attack could be made. - The court held that the basis of V’s fear was that she didn’t know what D would do next, but that it was likely to be of a violent nature. It held that that fear was immediate enough for the purpose of the offence. Point of law or Legal Principle: - For an assault, it is not necessary to identify the exact nature of the victim’s fear or whether it was possible for D to carry out the threat of immediate violence. - ‘Immediate’ does not mean instantaneous, but imminent.

Question 57

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 57

Collins v Wilcock (1984) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus Reus of battery Facts of the case: - A police officer wished to question a woman in relation to her alleged activity as a prostitute. The woman decided to walk away, but the police officer wanted to stop her and in order to do so, grabbed her arm in order to prevent her from walking away. - The woman struggled with the police officer and scratched him. She was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of his duty. - It was held that the police officer was acting outside the scope of his powers as he had no power to arrest the woman in that situation. - It was held further that the grabbing on the part of the police officer amounted to an unlawful assault (battery). - The woman had been entitled to resist as an action of self-defence. Her conviction was therefore quashed. Point of law or Legal Principle: - It was held that any touching may be battery if it is outside of the scope of what is normally acceptable, and always is if there is physical restraint.

Question 58

Wood (Fraser) v DPP

Answer 58

Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus Reus of battery Facts of the case: - The police had received a report that a man named Fraser had thrown an ashtray at another person in a public house. - Three police officers went to the scene and saw a man that fitted Fraser’s description. One of them took hold of V’s arm and asked if he was Fraser. When he denied it another police officer took hold of his other arm while he struggled to pull away. - It was held that as the police officer had not arrested V when he was holding his arm, there was an assault (battery) by the police officers. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Where a police officer restrains a person, but does not at the time intend to arrest them, he is committing an assault, even if an arrest would have been justified.

Question 59

DPP v K

Answer 59

DPP v K (1990) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus Reus of battery Facts of the case: - D was a 15-year-old student who took sulphuric acid without permission to try its reaction on some toilet paper. - While he was in the bathroom he heard footsteps, panicked, and put the acid into a hot-air drier with the intention of removing it later, but another student used the drier first and was sprayed by the acid. - D was charged under s 47 OAPA 1861. After being acquitted, the prosecution appealed by way of case stated. - Appellate court ruled that a common assault could be committed by an indirect act. Point of law or Legal Principle: - For the actus reus of battery, the application of force need not be directly applied.

Question 60

DPP v Santana Bermudez (battery)

Answer 60

DPP v Santa Bermudez (2003) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus Reus of battery Facts of the case: - Prior to being searched by a police officer, D was asked whether they had any needles or sharp objects in their possession. D said no, knowing he did in fact have a needle in his pocket. - The police officer was stabbed by the needle in D’s pocket and was injured. - D appealed his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 of the OAPA 1861. He argued that he had not committed any positive act which caused the police officer’s injury. The Crown Court accepted D’s appeal. - The DPP appealed to the High Court, seeking a clear answer on how a case such as this should be dealt with in the future. - The Court held that D had placed the police officer in a dangerous situation, and his omission to correct his statement and avert the dangerous situation constituted the ‘actus reus’ of the offence. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The issue facing the Court was whether the D’s omission to warn the police officer constituted the actus reus of assault occasioning ABH. - When D has a duty to act (in this case, D had created a dangerous situation) and fails to do so, the omission can amount to the actus reus of a s 47.

Question 61

DPP v Majewski

Answer 61

DPP v Majewski (1976) NON-FATAL OAP- Mens rea of assault and battery Facts of the case: - D had taken a substantial quantity of drugs over a 48 hour period. He then went to a pub and had a drink. - He got into a fight with two others. The landlord went to break up the fight and the appellant attacked him. - When the police arrived, he assaulted the arresting officer. Another officer was struck by the appellant when he was being driven to the police station. The next morning he attacked a police inspector in his cell. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The issue facing the Court was whether the D’s omission to warn the police officer constituted the actus reus of assault occasioning ABH. - When D has a duty to act (in this case, D had created a dangerous situation) and fails to do so, the omission can amount to the actus reus of a s 47.

Question 62

T v DPP

Answer 62

T v DPP (2003) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus reus of s47 Facts of the case: - The victim was approached by a group of boys, who began attacking him. - The victim attempted to escape but fell. D, one of the boys, kicked the victim so hard he lost consciousness for a brief amount of time. - A police officer then intervened to stop the attack. - D was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He appealed his conviction. He argued that he had not caused actual bodily harm to the victim. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The issue facing the court was whether a brief loss of consciousness could amount to actual bodily harm. - The Court held that a brief loss of consciousness could amount to actual bodily harm.

Question 63

DPP v Smith

Answer 63

DPP v Smith (2006) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus reus of s47 Facts of the case: - D cut off V’s ponytail without her consent. - He was charged with an offence under s 47 of the OAPA 1861 but was acquitted since there was no “bruising, bleeding or cutting of the skin, and therefore, the cutting of hair was not considered ABH. - CofA allowed the appeal and upheld the conviction. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Court held that physical pain was not a necessary ingredient of ABH. - Hair is attached to the head and this makes it a part of the body so that harm to the hair is actual bodily harm. - However, a substantial amount of hair has to be cut off for the harm to be ‘actual’ as opposed to trivial or insignificant harm.

Question 64

R v Roberts (s 47)

Answer 64

R v Roberts (1972) NON-FATAL OAP- Mens rea of s47 Facts of the case: - After a party, D gave the female victim a lift in his car. The victim and D had not met before. D began making sexual advances towards the victim which were rejected before attempting to pull off her coat. - The victim then opened the door and jumped out of the moving vehicle sustaining injuries as a result. - D was convicted of actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 even though he had not intended any injury or realised there was a risk of an injury. He had intended to apply unlawful force when he touched her as he tried to take her coat off. This satisfied the mens rea for a common assault and so he was guilty of a s 47 offence. Point of law or Legal Principle: - For the mens rea of s 47 OAPA 1861: assault occasioning ABH, there is no need for D to intend or be reckless as to whether ABH is caused.

Question 65

R v Savage

Answer 65

R v Savage (1991) NON-FATAL OAP- Mens rea of s47 Facts of the case: - D had thrown a glass of beer over her husband’s former girlfriend. - The glass broke and the victim was cut by it. - D contended that she had not intended to throw the glass, just the beer. She also hadn’t realised the risk of injury. - She appealed against her conviction under s 47. Her appeal was dismissed. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The mens rea for a s 47 offence only requires the same mens rea as for an assault or battery. - There is no need for D to intend or be reckless as to whether actual bodily harm is caused.

Question 66

JCC v Eisenhower

Answer 66

JCC v Eisenhower (1983) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus reus of s 20 Facts of the case: - D, a minor, shot multiple rounds from an air gun at a group of people, of which one airgun pellet hit the victim, also a minor, in the face, which ruptured internal blood vessel’s near the victim’s eye, causing bruising and swelling. - The Court found the defendant not guilty of wounding under s 20 OAPA 1861. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The issue facing the court was whether D’s actions amounted to a wounding under s. 20 of the OAPA. - A charge under s. 20 required that there be a break in ‘the continuity of the skin’, that is the whole skin and not merely a scratch to the outer layer of the skin. - This rule continues to be strictly applied in determining whether an injury is described as wounding. Thus, in cases where the skin remains intact, ABH or GBH are the only options for a charge.

Question 67

R v Bollom

Answer 67

R v Bollom (2004) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus reus of s 20 Facts of the case: - D inflicted various injuries upon his partner’s 17-month-old child, including bruises and cuts. Whilst the injuries per se did not amount to grievous bodily harm under s. 18 of the OAPA, the judge directed the jury to consider the young age of the victim, resulting in D being found guilty under s. 20. - D appealed. - D’s conviction for GBH under s. 18 was lessened to a charge of ABH under s. 47 as expert medical testimony suggested that the injuries sustained by the victim likely occurred over a prolonged period of time, rather than in the course of a single event, as would be necessary for a finding of GBH. Point of law or Legal Principle: - The issue facing the court was whether the particular circumstances and vulnerabilities of a victim should be considered by a jury in determining whether injuries which may usually be viewed as assault or actual bodily harm could be prosecuted as a more severe offence. - Court held that a jury should be able to take into account the unique circumstances of a victim and case in elevating a charge from ABH to GBH. For example, whereas bruising can amount to GBH on a child, it would be less serious in an adult. - Held that the severity of an injury should be assessed according to the victim’s age and health.

Question 68

R v Dica

Answer 68

R v Dica (2004) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus reus of s 20 Facts of the case: - D was charged with a s 20 on the basis that while knowing he was HIV positive, he had unprotected sexual intercourse with two women who were unaware of his infection. Both women were infected with HIV. - At his retrial D was convicted. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Those who, knowing that they are suffering HIV or some other serious sexual disease, recklessly transmit it through consensual sexual intercourse, and inflict GBH on a person from whom the risk is concealed and who is not consenting to it will be liable under s.20.

Question 69

R v Burstow

Answer 69

R v Burstow (1997) NON-FATAL OAP- Actus reus of s 20 Facts of the case: - D and victim were engaged in a short romantic relationship, which the victim ended. - D proceeded to harass the victim over several months, making repeated phone calls, delivering hate mail, appearing unexpectedly, causing her to sustain psychiatric injury (severe depression). - D was found guilty of a s 20. Point of law or Legal Principle: - In interpreting the word ‘inflict’ in s. 20, the Court determined it did not require the application of physical force, but instead could be understood as simply meaning D’s actions had been causative of the injury. ‘Inflict’ doesn’t need a technical assault or battery.

Question 70

R v Parmenter

Answer 70

R v Parmenter (1991) NON-FATAL OAP- Mens rea of s 20 Facts of the case: - D was prosecuted for GBH for injuries inflicted upon his infant son, including bruises, and broken bones. The injuries had resulted from the rough way D had handled his child, but being unused to dealing with children, the D had been unaware that such behaviour may cause injury. - Judge directed the jury to convict under s. 20 if they believed the defendant ought have objectively been aware that his behaviour may cause any degree of harm. D appealed. - D’s convictions of GBH under s. 20 were lessened to counts of actual bodily harm under s. 47. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Court confirmed Cunningham meaning of recklessness: To satisfy the mens rea element of “maliciously,” it is necessary to demonstrate that D intended or foresaw that some harm would be inflicted. - However, it is only necessary that any degree of harm be foreseen, it doesn’t have to be GBH.

Question 71

R v Taylor

Answer 71

R v Taylor (2009) NON-FATAL OAP- Mens rea of s 18 Facts of the case: - V was found with scratches across his face and a stab wound in his back. - Photos of the scratches and medical evidence didn’t help in showing the depth of the wound and whether D had intended really serious injury. - Judge directed jury that they must be sure the prosecution had proved D had intended to cause GBH or wound. - D was convicted of s 18 offence. On appeal, CofA quashed conviction on the basis that judge had misdirected the jury and substituted conviction for s 20. Point of law or Legal Principle: - An intention to wound is not sufficient for the mens rea of a s 18 offence. It must be an intention to cause GBH.

Question 72

R v Morrison

Answer 72

R v Morrison (1989) NON-FATAL OAP- Mens rea of s 18 Facts of the case: - Police officer got holf of D and told him she was arresting him. He dived through a window, dragging her with him as far as the window so that her face was badly cut by the glass. - D convicted of s 18 offence. Point of law or Legal Principle: - Held that word ‘maliciously’ used in this section must have the same meaning as in Cunningham (1957). - Prosecution must prove D either intended injury or realised there was a risk of injury and took the risk. - Where D is trying to resist arrest, then level of intention regarding the injury is lower- prosecution only need to prove recklessness as to whether actions would cause wound or injury.

Question 73

Cases on rules of criminal law

Answer 73

1. Shaw v DPP (1962)- Judge Made Law | 2. Woolmington v DPP (1935)- Burden of Proof

Question 74

Cases on Actus Reus

Answer 74

Actus Reus 1. R v Mitchell (1983) 2. R v Larsonneur (1933) Actus Reus - Omissions 3. R v Gibbins and Proctor 4. R v Stone and Dobinson (1977) 5. R v Evans (2009) 6. R v Dytham (1979) 7. R v Miller (1983) 8. DPP v Santa v Bermudez (2003) 9. Airedale NHS v Bland (1993) 10. Khan v Khan (1998) Causation 11. R v Pagett, (1983) 12. R v Hughes (2013) 13. R v Kimsey (1996) 14. R v Blaue (1975) 15. R v Smith (1959) 16. R v Cheshire (1991) 17. R v Jordan (1956) 18. R v Malcherek (1981) 19. R v Roberts (1972) 20. R v Marjoram (2000) 21. R v Dear (1996)

Question 75

Cases on Mens Rea

Answer 75

Mens Rea - Foresight of Consequence 1. R v Moloney (1985) 2. R v Hancock and Shankland (1986) 3. R v Nedrick (1986) 4. R v Woolin (1998) 5. Matthews and Alleyne (2003) Mens Rea - Subjective Recklessness 6. R v Cunningham (1957) 7. Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Caldwell (1981) 8. R v G and Another (2003) Mens Rea - Negligence 9. R v Adomako (1994) Mens Rea - Transferred Malice 10. R v Latimer (1886) 11. R v Gnango (2011) Coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea 12. R v Thabo Meli (1954) 13. R v Church (1965) Mens Rea - Continuing Act 14. Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1986)

Question 76

Cases on Strict Liability

Answer 76

Concept of Strict Liability 1. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986) Absolute Liability 2. R v Larsonneur (1933) 3. Winzar v chief Constable of Kent (1983) Strict Liability 4. R v Prince (1875) 5. R v Hibbert (1869) No Fault 6. Callow v Tillstone (1900) No ‘Due Diligence’ Defence 7. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999) No Defence of Mistake 8. Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 9. Sherras v De Rutzen (1895) Strict Liability at Common Law 10. Gibson v Sylveire (1991) Interpretation By The Courts 11. Sweet v Parsley (1969) 12. Alphacell v Woodward (1972) 13. B v DPP (2000) 14. R v Blake (1997) 15. Lim Chin v The Queen (1963) 16. Environment Agency v Brock PLC (1998) 17. R v G (2008)

Question 77

Cases on Non-fatal Offences Against the Person

Answer 77

Actus Reus of Assault 1. Smith v Chief Superintendent of Woking Police Station (1983) Actus Reus of Battery 2. Collins v Wilcock (1984) 3. Wood (Fraser) v DPP (2008) 4. DPP v K (1990) 5. DPP v Santa Bermudez (2003) Mens Rea of Assault and Battery 6. DPP v Majewski (1976) Actus Reus of s 47 7. T v DPP (2003) 8. DPP v Smith (2006) Mens Rea of s 47 9. R v Roberts (1971) 10. R v Savage (1991) Actus Reus of s 20 11. JCC v Eisenhower (1983) 12. R v Bollom (2004) 13. R v Dica (2004) 14. R v Burstow (1997) Mens Rea of s 20 15. R v Parmenter (1991) Mens Rea of s 18 16. R v Taylor (2009) 17. R v Morrison (1989)