Caselist-Criminal - Case list for criminal law. PDF

Preview

Summary

1Actus reus.Acts(General principle) Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland. The actus reus must be voluntary or willed. In this case Lord Denning stated; 'no act is punishable if it is done involuntary: and an involuntary act in this context means.. act doe by, the muscles without control by the mind su...

Description

Case list for Criminal law.

Actus reus. Acts(General principle) Bratty v. A-G for 1.

1.

Northern Ireland.

2.

2.

Deller.

The actus reus must be voluntary or willed. In this case Lord Denning stated; 'no act is punishable if it is done involuntary: and an involuntary act in this context means...an act doe by, the muscles without control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex, or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done while suffering from a concussion or while sleep walking'. The actus reus must be proved.

Exception 3, 4 and 5.

3, 4 and 5.

Larsonneur; Robinson Pierre; Winzar; Elvin; Deyemi.

Status, situational and possession offences can be committed involuntarily. They do not require a proof of mens rea.

Burden of proof(General principle) 6.

6.

Woolmington V. Dpp.

Burden of proof is on the prosecution. If the jury is left with reasonable doubt as to the guilt, they must acquit; although they may not be satisfied that he is innocent, but if they are not sure of the guilt, the case against the defendant has not been proven. Exception; the defenses of 'insanity' and ' diminished responsibility'.

Omissions. (1).Mere omission (conduct crime). 7.

7.

Dytham; Brown.

8, 9.

8, 9.

Miller (criminal damage); Shama (Theft).

Most result crimes can be committed by omission.

10.

10.

Dunn (assault).

Definitions of some crimes specify and imply that only acts are sufficient.

These cases illustrate the presence of omissions at common law.

(2).Commission by omission (5 duty situations) (result crime). 11, 12, 13 , 14 , 15.

(a). Close Relation.

16 and 17.

(a). Close Relation.

Parents & children.

Downes; Duty exists between parents and children. Gibbons and Proctor; Lowe; Emery and Russell. Hood; Smith. Duty exists between husband and wife.

Husband & wife.

Muhammad Shahzaib Shoaib.

Case list for Criminal law. Marriot; Instan; Stone and Dobinson; Ruffel.

Where responsibility of another person has been voluntarily assumed, the criminal law imposes a duty to act on the basis of expectation or reliance.

R V. Miller 1954; R V. Miller 1983; Dpp V. Santa Bermudez; Gemma Evans.

In a case where the defendant does an act which creates a dangerous situation but then deliberately or knowingly fails to undo that danger due to which the harm is caused.

R V. Pittwood; R V. Dytham.

Applies when through a contract of employment, an employee assumes responsibility for third parties, such as public.

R V. Fagan; Kaitamaki.

This doctrine applies where the actus reus and mens rea do not coincide in time and the defendant brings about the actus reus without relevant mens rea but while the harmful result continues, intentionally omits to remedy them.

exception

Airedale NHS Trust V. Bland.

Causation!

Morby.

An omission by the doctors to provide life support in the best interest of the patient is not a breach of duty. The prosecution must be able to prove that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the harm.

18, 19, 20 and 21.

(b).

22, 23, 24 and 25.

(c).

26 and 27.

(d).

28 and 29.

(e).

30.

31.

Voluntary assumption of responsibility.

Creating a dangerous situation.

Contractual, statutory or official duty.

'Continuing act doctrine'.

Causation; Causation is a set of rules by which the courts determine whether the defendant has caused or contributed significantly to the result as a matter of law. It is a two stage test: factual and legal causation. R V. White; R 'But for test'; "but for" the defendant's conduct, the result 32 (1). V. Dalloway. would not have happened. Defendants 'culpable conduct and Factual should be the factual cause of the result. 33. Causation . Dr. Adams; Dr. Minimal contributions are disregarded. Thus a doctor 34 Cox. who accelerates death by minutes or hours of a and terminally ill patient by administering him with a high 35. dose of pain killers for the purposes of palliative care does not cause death; defendants conduct need not be the minimal cause of the end result; it has to be the significant cause of the result.

(2). Legal Causation; Legal causation is more of a test of moral judgment. The defendants ‘culpable conduct’ should be the legal cause of the end result.

36 and 37. 38.

36 and 37.

38.

Pagett.

The defendants conduct should be the significant cause of the end result.

39.

39.

Smith.

The defendants conduct should be the substantial cause of the end result.

40.

40.

Benge.

The defendant conduct need not be the sole or main cause of the

Hennigan; Cato.

'De minimis principle'; the defendants conduct should be more than trivial cause of the end result.

41.

41.

Mitchell.

end result but it has to be an operating cause. 'Casual connection does not have to be direct'. Third Party interventions (4 situations)

Muhammad Shahzaib Shoaib.

Case list for Criminal law. 42.

(a). Homicide and violent offences.

Pagett.

43.

(a). Homicide and violent offences. (b). Drug supply cases.

Rafferty.

44.

Dalby and Armstong; Kennedy (No.2).

(1). The defendants acts need not be the sole or main cause of victim's death. (2). Defendants act need only contribute 'significantly' to the result. (3). Third party intervention has to be 'free, deliberate and informed'. (4). Reasonable act in self-preservation or in pursuance of a legal duty is not voluntary. (1). Third party intervention has to be 'free, deliberate and informed'. (2). If there is an independent act that supersedes the initial act then the chain of causation will be broken. (1). A voluntary act of self injection will break the chain of causation as self injection of a class A drug, by an informed adult of sound mind is an autonomous act. (2). Third party intervention must be 'free, deliberate and informed'. •

(c). Medical cases. 45 and 46. 47, 48, 49. 50.

60, 61.

(1). The defendants act need not be the only or main cause of death. (2). The defendants act need not be the sole cause of death but 'must' be a 'substantial, operating and significant cause'

(1)

Dyson; Mckechnie.

Defendants act does not have to be the only or main cause of death.

(2).

Smith; Malcherek and Steel; Cheshire (COC not broken).

(2).

Jordan (COC broken).

The defendants act does not have to be the sole cause of death but it must be substantial, operating and significant cause. At the time of death, injuries caused by the defendant were not substantial, operating and significant cause. The cause was the 'palpably wrong' treatment.

(d). Intervention by victim. 51, 52, 54. 55, 56. 57, 58, 59.

2 main rules apply

Not voluntary where the third party is acting: in the course of duty or self preservation, in concert with the defendant, or is an innocent agent.

2 main rules apply (potentially conflicting).

(1). You must take your victims as you find them; (2). Victim escape cases.

(1).

Owens v Liverpool Corp (originated); Martin; Blaue; Holland; Hayward;

Egg shell rule; you must take your victims as you find them.

(1).

Blaue; Holland.

The victim is under no duty to seek help.

(1).

Dear, Dhaliwal.

Unforeseeable acts by the victim followed by the defendant’s unlawful act, even suicide will not break the coc. Applies to Blue and Holland too. Victim’s response must be proportionate to the threat. The test of 'reasonable forseeability' applies and the victim is

Wallace (Coc broken). (2).

Roberts; Marjoram.

judged through the standards of a hypothetical on-looker.

62,

(2).

Williams; Davis.

Muhammad Shahzaib Shoaib.

Victim’s abnormal, unreasonable or daft

Case list for Criminal law. 63.

reaction will break the coc.

4

Mens Rea. Direct Intention. 64.

64.

Direct intention is the aim or purpose of the defendant.

Moloney.

Oblique Intention. 65.

65.

Nedrick/Woollin test; (1). A court or jury may also find that a result is intended, though it is not the actor's purpose to cause it, when; (a) the result is virtually certain consequence of the act, and (b) the actor know that it is virtually certain consequence of the act.

Nedrick/Woollin.

Recklessness. 66.

66.

Cunnigham; R v G & R .

Recklessness is now defined subjectively as 'conscious taking of an unjustified risk’. The House of Lords held a subjective standard now applies to criminal damage.

Negligence. 67.

67.

68, 69.

Grossnegligence.

McCrone v. Riding. Bateman; Adomako.

Negligence adheres to an objective standard. Gross negligence is defined according to these cases as 'an extremely high degree of negligence' so as to deserve criminal punishment. Only applies to gross negligence manslaughter.

Transferred Malice. 70.

70.

Gnango.

71.

71.

A-G's Ref (No.3 of 1994).

72.

72.

Latimer.

73.

73.

Grant; Pembliton.

Transferred malice is a legal doctrine that states that when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible for the end result. Indented victim and the actual victim are treated as if they were one. The doctrine applies to all crimes of violence and not merely murder. The doctrine only applies if the family of offences is the same.

Muhammad Shahzaib Shoaib.

Case list for Criminal law.

5

Criminal Homicide Murder. Murder is defined at common law as ‘an unlawful killing of a human being in the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought’.  Unlawful killing; Actus reus Unlawful killing of a  Human being. human being in the  Queen’s peace. Queens’s peace. Mens rea  Intention to kill; Malice aforethought  Intention to cause GBH. Soldiers and police may kill in 74. (1).Unlawful killing Clegg. the course of their duties (Actus reus) but they will be liable for murder if they go beyond their duty or use excessive force. 75,76 (1).Unlawful killing Consent is not a defense to Nicklinson; . (Actus reus) liability for criminal homicide Nicklinson V. UK; by affirmative action; there Inglis. is no defense of euthanasia or of dueling. contributions are 77. (1).Unlawful killing Dr. Adams; Dr. Cox. Minimal disregarded. Thus a doctor who (Actus reus) accelerates death by minutes or hours of a terminally ill patient but the purpose of palliative care does not cause death; defendants conduct need not be the minimal cause of the end result; it has to be the significant cause of the result.

78.

(1).Unlawful killing (Actus reus)

Airedale Hospital Trustees V. Bland.

79.

(1).Unlawful killing (Actus reus)

St George’s Health care NHS Trust V. S.

80.

(2). Human being (Actus reus)

A-G’s Ref (No.3 of 1994).

81, 82.

(2). Human being (Actus reus)

Poulton; Enouch.

Withdrawal of treatment will also not expose the doctors to liability. If the victim refuses to have medical treatment to save their life, doctors who accede to that refusal are not responsible for the resulting death. A fetus is not classified as a human being and hence a defendant who kills a fetus cannot be charged with murder. If the child has ‘an existence independent of its mother’ then it is capable of being murdered. To have such an

murdered. To have such an existence the child must have been wholly expelled from its mother’s body and be alive.

Muhammad Shahzaib Shoaib.

Case list for Criminal law. ECTHR has declined to decide directly whether the fetus is protected by the right to life in Article 2. Disability, no matter how extreme, does not prevent a person becoming a human being. A person ceases to be a human being when their brain stem ceases to be active, irrespective of whether they are being kept alive by artificial means. Malice aforethought means ‘intention to kill’ (aka express malice) and ‘intention to cause GBH’ (aka implied malice).

83.

(2). Human being (Actus reus)

Vo V. France.

84.

(2). Human being (Actus reus)

Inglis.

85, 86.

(2). Human being (Actus reus)

Malcherek and Steel.

87.

(1).Malice aforethought (Mens rea).

Vickers; Cunningham.

88.

(1).Malice aforethought (Mens rea).

Moloney.

Direct intention for murder.

89.

(1).Malice aforethought (Mens rea).

Nedrick/Woollin.

[Oblique-intention]

Nedrick/Woollin test; (1). A court or jury may also find that a result is intended, though it is not the actor's purpose to cause it, when; (a) the result is virtually certain consequence of the act, and (b) the actor know that it is virtually certain consequence.

Murder defenses.

(1). Diminished

o

Only available in murder.

responsibility.

o

Partial defenses.

o

Reduces the conviction

(2). Loss of self control.

from

to

murder

voluntary manslaughter. 90.

(1). Diminished

HM Advocate V.

The defense of diminished

responsibility.

Dingwall.

responsibility

originated

in

this case in Scotland and introduced in UK by the S.2 of the Homicide Act 1957. 91.

(1). Diminished responsibility.

Campbell.

It

is

not

a

defense

attempted murder.

to

Muhammad Shahzaib Shoaib.

Case list for Criminal law.

7 92,93,94 .

(1). Diminished responsibility.

Elements of Diminished responsibility:

Dunbar; Ahmed Din; Bradshaw.

In the case of diminished responsibility, the burden of proof is on the defendant and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities.

1. Abnormality of mental functioning; 2. Recognized medical condition; 3. Which provides an explanation for the killing 52 (1B) ; 4. Substantially impaired the defendant’s ability 52 (1A).

95.

(1).Abnormality of mental functioning.

Byrne.

96.

(2).Recognized medical condition.

Gittens.

97.

(2).Recognized medical condition.

Inglis.

Lord Parker CJ stated: ‘Abnormality of mind’ means a state of mind so different from that of ordinary human beings that the reasonable man would term it abnormal. He further stated that it was wide enough to cover the minds activities in all its aspects. Including the ability to form a rational judgment of what is right and wrong but also the ability to exercise will power to control physical activities in accordance with rational judgment. Depression is a recognized medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility. Bipolar disorder is a recognized medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility.

98.

(2).Recognized medical

Muhammad Shahzaib Shoaib.

Sutcliffe (The times).

Paranoid schizophrenia is

Case list for Criminal law.

8

99.

100.

condition.

(2).Recognized medical condition.

(2).Recognized medical

Byrne.

Martin (Anthony).

condition. 101.

(2).Recognized medical condition.

Reynolds.

102.

(2).Recognized medical condition.

Ahluwalia.

103.

(2).Recognized medical condition.

Smith (sandie).

104.

(2).Recognized medical condition.

Brennan.

105.

(4).Substantially impaired the defendant’s ability.

Golds.

106.

(4).Substantially impaired the

Lloyd.

defendant’s ability.

a recognized medical condition for the purposes of diminished reasonability. Psychopathy is a recognized medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility. Paranoid personality disorder is a recognized medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility. Postnatal depression is a recognized medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility. Battered Women’s syndrome is also a recognized medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility. Premenstrual syndrome is also a recognized medical condition for the purposes of diminished responsibility. If the medical evidence supporting a defense of diminished responsibility is put before the court by a medical expert and the prosecution does not contradict the evidence with evidence of their own medical expert, a charge of murder should be withdrawn from the jury. The Court of Appeal in this case ruled that the defendant’s mental abnormality must have had a very significant effect on his ability to understand/ control himself. The impairment need not be total bit it must be more than trivial or

more than trivial or minimal.

Muhammad Shahzaib Shoaib.

Case list for Criminal law. Diminished responsibility and intoxication. 9 107.

Diminished responsibility and intoxication.

Fenton.

Intoxication is not a ‘medical condition’ and therefore it will be no ground for the defense.

108.

Diminished responsibility and intoxication.

Dowds.

109.

Diminished responsibility and intoxication.

Gittens.

110.

Diminished responsibility and intoxication.

Atkinson.

The Court of Appeal in this case concluded that voluntary acute intoxication, whether from alcohol or another substance is not capable of a defense of diminished responsibility. In this case the Court of Appeal suggested that a person who kills due to the combined effect of intoxication and a recognized medical condition may still have a defense and in such cases the jury should be directed to consider, first whether the defendant would have killed as he did without being intoxicated, and if the answer to that was affirmative, the second question would be whether he would have ...