Criminal law case list - notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal law case list:Burglary cases:Case name: Topic: Facts: Held: R V Collins (1973)Burglary – Actus ReusEnteredThe defendant saw an open bedroom window. He climbed up a ladder and saw a naked girl lay on the bed. He went back down the ladder and stood on the windowsill. The girl woke up and thou...

Description

Criminal law case list: Burglary cases: Case name: R V Collins (1973)

Topic: Burglary – Actus Reus Entered

R V Brown (1985)

Burglary – actus reus Entered

R V Ryan (1996)

Burglary – AR Entered

Stevens V Gourley (1859)

Norkfolk Constabulary V Seeking and Gould (1986)

Burglary- AR Building or part of a building

Burglary – AR Building or Part of a building

Facts: The defendant saw an open bedroom window. He climbed up a ladder and saw a naked girl lay on the bed. He went back down the ladder and stood on the windowsill. The girl woke up and thought it was her boyfriend. She pulled the D into the room and had sex with him. When she realised it was not her boyfriend, she told him to leave.

Held: He was charged with s.9(1)(a) but there was a misdirection at the trial and the COA quashed the conviction. It is important to note that s.9(2) used to also included rape as an ulterior offence but this was removed by the sexual offences act 2003

The D was caught with the top half of his body through a broken shop window

He was charged with s,9(1)(a). COA upheld his conviction they said that the D’s entry needs to only be effective no ‘substantial and effective’ as stated in Collins COA upheld his conviction of s.9 (1)(a) stating that it did not matter whether he could steal anything or not

The D got this arm stuck through a window and had to be freed by the fire brigade. The D argued that his entry had not been ‘effective’ as he was unable to steal anything The court was asked to decide if a wooden structure measuring 16 by 13 feet rested on timbers was to be considered a ‘building’ Goods were stolen from 2 lorry trailers that a supermarket had been using for storage for over a year. The trailers were

COA stated that entry of the building as a trespasser had to be ‘substantial and effective.’ The fact that the D was stood on the windowsill meant that his entry was not substantial and effective. When he actually entered the bedroom, he was not a trespasser as the girl invited him in

The structure was a building and Judge Byles defined a building as: ‘a structure of considerable size and intended to be a permanent at least endure for a considerable time’. The Ds were not guilty of burglary as the containers had wheels and were therefore, uninhabited vehicles

disconnected from the lorry and had steps going up to them. Both were locked and connected to an electric supply. B and S V Leathley (1979)

Burglary – AR

RV Walkington (1979)

Burglary – AR

Building or Part of a building

Building or part

A storage container was broken into that had been used as a freezer on a farm for over 2 years. The container was resting on railway sleepers, had a locking door and was connected to an electric supply. The D went into Debenhams department store. He went behind the till to look in an open cash register. When he saw there was nothing in it, he closed the drawer.

The container was considered to be a building and the defendant was guilty of burglary. It did not matter that the container was not fixed to the ground nor did it need to have foundations to be considered a ‘building’.

The D was charged with burglary under s.9(1)(a). His conviction was upheld as the COA believed that what constitutes ‘part of a building’ is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

Murder cases: Case name: Attorney General’s refence No.3 of 1994

Topic: Murder – AR -Foetus

Facts: The D stabbed a pregnant woman. The baby was born prematurely and later died. The question was ‘should the D be convicted of the murder of the child?’

Rv Malcherek (1957)

Murder – AR -Brain dead

The V of a stabbing was pronounced brain dead and doctors switched off the life support machine

Held: HOL held that the fact that the baby had not been born at the time of the attack did not prevent a murder conviction when she later died. On the facts, however, the D could not be guilty as it was not possible to transfer malice – for the murder of the baby. They said that at best, a conviction for manslaughter was a possibility. As the V was considered to be brain dead, turning off the life machine did not end his life, the V was already dead

R V Vickers (1957)

Murder – MR

The D broke into a shop owned by an old woman. When she saw Vickers, he punched her several times and kicked her in the head

COA established that intention to cause GBH is sufficient mens rea to prove malice afterthought. This is an example of implied malice.

Intention to cause GBH

once. She died of injuries

R V Maloney

Murder The development of the law on oblique intention

R V Hancock and Shankland

Murder

R v Nedrick

Murder

The development of the law on oblique intention

The development of the law on oblique intention

R V Woolin

Murder The development of the law on oblique intention

Father and son were drinking and had a competition of who can draw their gun the fastest. The father had said the son had no guts in pulling the trigger of the gun. Maloney had fired the gun and did not realise that it was pointing at his father. The father died.

D pushed concrete blocks off a motorway bridge. Trying to block the road so that a taxi taking another worker to work cannot get passed. The driver was killed.

D had a grudge agasint a woman. He poured paraffin through the letter box of her house and set it alight. A child died in the fire. D was convicted of murder, but the COA quashed the conviction and substituted one of manslaughter,

D threw his 3-month- old baby towards his pram which was against a wall ¾ feet away. The baby suffered from head injuries and died

This point was confirmed by the HOL in the case of Cunningham (1981) D’s conviction for murder was substituted for manslaughter. The judge gave the following instructions questions to the jury 1) Was death or GBH a natural consequence of the D’s act? 2) Did the D foresee the consequence as being a natural result? HOL again decided that foresight of consequences and stated that if you were highly probable to foresee the consequence then it means you intended it. - Test for foresight consequence is the probability test - If you foresee the consequence it automatically is intention The question arose as to how likely a consequence needed to be before a D may be said to have intended it. COA decided that if the D realised that death or GBH would be a ‘virtually certain’ result of their conduct, then the jury may find that they intended to cause the result. Again, this would only be evidence of intention and a jury would not be obliged to find the D guilty. HOL confirmed the test in Nedrick of ‘virtual certainty’ for foresight of consequence But stated if the test is satisfied then the jury can find foresight of consequence equalling to intention

Rv Matthews & Alleyne (2003)

Murder The development of the law on the oblique intention

Ds threw V into a river 25 feet from a bridge. V told them that he could not swim. Ds watched him doggy paddle but left before he drowned

On appeal, it was stressed even if the D does foresee death or GBH as virtual certainty the jury may find intention, but they do not have to. It is simply a rule of evidence rather than of law and it is something that a jury may use to help them to decide whether or not the D has had the necessary intention

Robbery cases: Case name: Corcoran V Anderton (1980)

Topic: Robbery – AR theft

Facts: One of the defendants hit the victim in the back whilst the other pulled at her handbag. The victim screamed as the handbag fell to the ground and the defendants ran of empty handed

Clouden (1987)

Robbery – AR Force or threat of force

The D wrenched a shopping bag from the V’s hand

R v Dawson v James

Robbery – AR Force or threat of force

One of the D’s nudged the V in the back so that he lost his balance, the other D took the V’s wallet

B and R V DPP (2007)

Robbery – AR Force or threat of force

R v Hale (1978)

Robbery – AR

A group of 5 school boys surrounded the V (age 16). More boys arrived and surrounded the victim. The Ds pushed him and held his arms whilst they took his phone, money and watch. The V said that he did not feel threatened or scared. The ds appealed against the conviction for robbery The Ds forced their way into the V’s house. One of the D’s went upstairs and stole a

Force or threat

Held: Convictions upheld. An appropriation had taken place with the relevant dishonest intent to permanently deprive. It was irrelevant that they left empty handed or that they gained full control of the bag since touching to amount to an appropriation. COA held that the force applied to the property was sufficient to amount to robbery. What amounts to force should be left to the jury to decide The amount of force used was sufficient to be classed as robbery. The word ‘force’ has been interpreted in the ordinary sense to the word. It does not require any violence. The conviction for robbery was upheld by the COA

COA upheld their conviction for robbery despite the fact that it was impossible to say whether

of force

jewellery box whilst the other used force to tie up the V

R v Lockley (1995)

Robbery – AR Force or threat of force

R v Robinson (1977)

Robbery – AR

The Ds stole cans of beer from an off-licence and used force on the shop keeper as he left the shop The V owed the D money. He used a knife to threaten the V. the V dropped a £5 note that the D took as part payment of the £7 that he was owed.

Force or threat of force

the theft occurred at the same time as the force. The theft was a continuing act and therefore it was still happening when the victim was being tied up The decision of Hale was applied in this case. COA upheld the conviction. The theft was a continuing act. COA quashed his conviction of robbery as the jury at his trial should been allowed to consider whether he was not acting dishonestly due to the fact that he honestly believed that he had a right in law to take the money.

Actus reus and Omissions: Case name: Rv Larsonneur (1933)

Topic: AR – state of affairs

R V Pittwood (1902)

Omissions – contractual duty

Dytham

Omissions – professional Duty

R v Stone and

Omissions – voluntary

Facts: The D, a French woman, was deported against her will, from Ireland to England, by the Irish authorities. Upon her arrival she was immediately charged with the offence of ‘being’ an illegal alien. The D was employed by a railway company to man the gate at a level crossing. The D lifted the gate to allow a cart to pass and then went off to lunch failing to put it back down. A train later collided with a horse and cart killing the train driver The D was a police officer. He stood by whilst a bouncer kicked a man to death. He was charged with the offence of misconduct in a public offence. He argued that the offence could not be committed by an omission as it specially requires misconduct. Stone was 67, totally blind, partially deaf had no

Held: Her conviction was upheld despite the fact she had not voluntarily come to England

The D was liable for the death of the train driver as it was his contractual duty to close the gate

The offence of misconduct in a public officer can be committed by an omission. The D’s conviction was upheld

Stone and Dobinson were found liable for her death as they had

Dobinson (1977)

acceptance of responsibility

Miller (1983)

Omissions – create dangerous situation

appreciable sense of smell and was of law intelligence. He lived with his housekeeper and mistress of 8 years, Gwendoyln Dobinson aged 43, who was described as ineffectual and inadequate. Ted’s sister fanny came to live with them. She had previously lived with another sister but had fallen out with her. She had mental problems and was suffering from anorexia nervosa. ted and Gwendolyn took her in and agreed to looks after her. However, Fanny’s condition deteriorated, and she was found dead in her bed in appalling conditions D had been out drinking for the evening. He went back to the house he had been staying in and fell asleep on a mattress with a lighted cig in his hand. He awoke and saw that the cig has started a fire. He then got up and went to the other room and went back to sleep. A this trial, the prosecution did not rely on the acts of the D in falling asleep with a lighted cig as being reckless but relied solely on the grounds that upon becoming aware of the fire he failed to take steps to put the fire out or call the fire brigade

assumed a responsibility to her by taking her in. they failed to look after her and ensure she got the medical help she needed.

D had created a dangerous situation and owed duty to call the fire brigade upon becoming aware of the fire. He was therefore liable for omission to do so

Causation: Case name: Pagett (1983)

Topic: Causation – factual

White (1910)

Causation – factual

Facts: D used his pregnant gf as a human shield to protect himself during a crossfire with the police. The police shot and killed the gf D tried to kill his mother in order to gain

Held: ‘but for’ the D’s act of using the gf as a shield, she would not have died. Pagett was found guilty of manslaughter

The prosecution could not prove the D’s actions were the factual

Kimsey (1996)

Causation – legal

Jordan (1956)

Causation – breaks in the chain 3rd party

Smith (1959)

Causation – breaks the chain 3rd party

Cheshire (1991)

Causation – breaks in the chain 3rd party

Malcherek and Steel

Causation – breaks in the

inheritance. He put poison in her drink, but before consuming the drink she died of a heart attack The D was involved in a car chase with a friend. She lost control of the car and the other driver was killed V was stabbed in the lung. He showed an allergy to the painkillers that the doctors gave him. The doctors were negligent to see that the victim was allergic to the painkillers as they still gave him painkillers, making him overdose. The doctors realised and pumped his water with water to get rid of the drugs. He died and drowned and died. D and V were soldiers. V was stabbed and dropped several times when being carried to hospital. Doctors did not see the severity of his injuries and left him for 3 hours in which he had died from the treatment that did not work D shot a man in the stomach and thigh. He was operated on an developed breathing difficulties. The wounds were not life threatening anymore and were healing. The doctors thought he was having panic attacks when this was not the case, in fact there was complications arising from his tracheotomy. D stabbed his wife in the stomach, she was put on

cause of her death- ‘but for’ his actions she still would have died

COA stated that reference to substantial is not always needed and that there just has to be more than a slight or trifling link for the D to be found guilty. Medical treatment was palpably wrong, so it broke the chain of causation. Original D was no longer responsible for V’s death

The doctors were not a ‘noctus actus invenieres’ as the stab wound was the operating and substantial cause of the death.’

Conviction was upheld despite the wounds were not the operative cause, the jury regarded the victims as not insignificant, but the D’s acts were insignificant

Switching off a life support machine by a doctor does not

(1981)

chain 3rd party

Roberts (1978)

Causation – breaks in the chain Victim’s act

life support. Later she was declared brain dead. The machine was switched off, the original D was convicted for her murder D was giving a lift to V and began touching her clothes. V thought that D was going to rape her thus she jumped out of the car where she received life threatening injuries

break the chain of causation, the original D was still guilty

The D was held liable for her injuries as they were reasonably foreseeable result of his actions. It cannot be expected to break the chain of causation

Mens rea cases: Case name: Mohan (1976)

Topic: Mens rea – direct intent (specific)

Maloney (1985)

Mens rea – oblique intent The test for foresight of consequence s is natural

Hancock and Shankland (1986)

Nedrick (1986) Woolin (1998) Matthews and Alleyne (2003)

Mens rea – oblique intent The test for foresight of consequence is the probability test

Facts: Police had told the D in the car to stop. D had stepped on the accelerator in which he had hit and police officer and killed him Father and son were drinking and had a competition of who can draw their gun the fastest. The father had said the son had no guts in pulling the trigger of the gun. Maloney had fired the gun and did not realise that it was pointing at his father. The father died. D pushed concrete blocks off a motorway bridge. Trying to block the road so that a taxi taking another worker to work cannot get passed. The driver was killed.

Held: D was guilty of manslaughter ‘no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not’ D was convicted for murder however it was substituted for manslaughter if the case was not a case of oblique intent. Foresight of consequences is not intention; it is evidence of intention

The Maloney direction was misleading as it did not refer to the degree of probability required. The greater probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen the greater the probability is that the consequence was also intended

Cunningha m (1957) Cadwell

Clarke (1972)

Mens rea – recklessness Type of recklessness Mens rea – law of insanity

Short periods of absent – mindedness fell short of amounting to a defect of reason

D absent – mindely placed a jar of mincemeat, a jar of coffee and some butter into her bag whilst shopping. She had no recollection of putting the items in her bag. Medical evidence reported that D was suffering from diabetes and depression. D changed her plea to guilty and then appealed against the judge’s finding of insanity

Offences against property

Case name: Morris (1983)

Topic: Theft – AR Appropriation

Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissione r (1972)

Theft – AR

Gomez (1903)

Theft – AR

Appropriation

Appropriation

Facts: The D changed the price of an item in a supermarket to that of a lower priced item. He placed the item in the basket but was stopped before he reached the checkout. An Italian student got into a London taxi at Victoria station. The student showed the D (taxi driver) an address written down. The journey should have cost 50p, but the taxi driver took £1 and a further £6 from the student’s wallet that he was holding open for the driver The D worked in an electrical shop. His accomplice enter...