Thabo Meli v R
as long D intended GBH or death at some point, that satisfies
- so long as chain of causation isn’t broken by a novus actus
- because they drugged + beat him, when they threw him off a cliff, they thought he was already dead so no mens rea
- can join chain of events together
Att-Gens Reference (No.3)
killing a foetus isn’t causing a death of another human being so it isn’t murder
R v Matthews & Alleyne
Threw boy in river, knew he couldn’t swim, was teasing him
- they walked away
- murder by omission is possible
- they caused the death
- and they had the mens rea (they intended GBH or death)
Re B
Patient made a decision and doctor followed
- he did what he needed to discharge the duty
- not murder
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland
Doctors are not guilty of murder because they stopped feeding him
- treating the patient is no longer in his best interest
R v Cunningham (1982)
Picked up a chair and hit someone over the head
- enough to show mens rea for murder
- just need intention to cause GBH, no need to show that D foresaw or intended that V might die
R v Steane
indirect intention
- if act results in something certain, jury may find him guilty
- if room for other views, jury might find intent did not exist
R v Maloney
Intention is subjective
R v Lipman
Majewski does not apply for specific intent offences - can raise voluntary intoxication of LSD to jury
R v Nedrick
if person does what is virtually certain to cause GBH or Murder it is indirect intention murder as long as D foresaw/understood this to be the case
R v Woolin
confirmed Nedrick - D must be “virtually certain” of the risk of GBH
Beckford v R
if you believe someone is going to shoot you, your action to shoot as self defence is judged on your own belief of the circumstances
Sharman v HM Coroner
innocent man shot because of mistaken belief, but that’s fine since self defence is judged on your own perception of the circumstance
R v Hatton
can’t rely on your own perception of self defence if you are drunk
R v Fennel
you can’t use self defence if force used against you is lawful (son detained lawfully)
R v Julien
cannot provoke attacker and punch first as “self defence” unless you think he is going to do more than punch you
R v Jones
only use self defence if you cannot call for help - no excuse for bat mans
R v Bryne
diminished responsibility = abnormality of mental functioning but need not be severe
R v Dowds
acute intoxication NOT recognised as a means condition
R v Golds
“substantially impaired” means medical condition must substantially or appreciably impair ability beyond minimal or trivial
R v Dietschmann
provide that medical condition did substantially impair, it does not matter that there were other causes too (here, he was drunk)
R v Dix
up to jury to decide if abnormality substantially affected
R v Clinton
threshold has risen for what might make D feel seriously wronged
DPP v Camplin
HL said what a reasonable person of the same age and gender would do (loss of control)
