CRIMINAL LAW CASE LIST

CONTINUING MENS REA

Woolmington (1935) act and intention must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Thabo mei (1954) continue actus rea D threw V off a cliff thinking he was
dead
Fagan (1969) parked on policemans leg.

STRICT LIABILITY
Walkington (1979) entering part of a building and being held responsible; Smith
Morgan (2001); DPP v Morgan (1976) Mistake of fact will result in acquittal
where there is no mens-rea

INTENTION AND RECKLESSNESS

Hyam v DPP (1957) implied malice aforethought
Cunningham (1982) - Implied malice aforethought
C v G and Elliot mentally subnormal girl constructed murder
Caldwell (1992) unjust definition of recklessness
Elliot (1993) unfairness in establishing objective standard
Smith (1990) a man who placed bomb on a plane to frighten people and not to
kill them
R & G (2003) subjective meaning of recklessness
McNaghten - rule on insanity

OMISSION
R v Pittwood (1902) contractual duty. Railway crossing
R v Gibbens and Proctor (1918) Family duty. Parent
R v Stone and Debbinson (1977) \- Victims reliance on Ds assurance
R v Millier (1983) Duty to mitigate consequence of Ds action

CAUSATION
R v White (1910) But for, Ds conduct was not legal cause of death
R v Jordan (1958) - Wrong medical treatment
R v Smith (1959) - Right medical treatment
R V Malcherek (1981) removal of life support did not break causation
R v Cheshire (1991) - medical negligent would not break the chain of causation
R v Blaue (1975) Thin skull principle
AGs Ref (No. 4 of 1980) 1981 Where D kills one or other act sufficient to
establish manslaughter, it is not necessary in order to find a conviction to proved
which one
R v Dear (1996) - Defendants neglect. D assaulted for sexual act on child
R v Dias (2001) Only third party extra ordinary event can break chain of
causation
Lewis v CPS (2002) Duty of care exist in joint enterprise
Rufell (2003) Duty of care with unwell victim left in the cold

MANSLAUGHTER
R v Church (1966) Constructive manslaughter
R v Adamako (1994) Gross negligence manslaughter

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

Ireland v Burstow (1998) inflicted means cause
DPP v Little (1992) where there is a battery the defendant charge with assault
by beating
Smith v Working Police (1983)
Mowath (1968) intention to inflict wound with foresight of some harm

INTOXICATION
R v Majewski (1977) Voluntary intoxication as defence for specific and not basic
crimes
AGs Ref. (No. 2 of 1992 (1993); R v Sullivan (1984) - External cause is absolute
necessary for automatism

AUTOMATISM/INSANITY
Braddy v AG for Northern Ireland (1963) Total loss of control is automatism
AGs Ref. (No. 2 of 1992 (1993)
R v Lipmann (1970) some form of control
R v Bailey (1983) - some form of control
R v Sullivan (1984) - External cause is absolute necessary for automatism
Queen v Falconer (1990) it is presumed that D has mental capacity for his
action
Hyperglycaemia high blood sugar level (internal) Hypoglycaemia (low blood
sugar level) external (brought about by insulin treatment).

DRUGS
R v Hardie (1955) effect of non-dangerous drug is a defence for basic/specific
R v Kingston (1984) involuntary intoxication is a defence

DURESS
R v Shyler(2001) - Accomplice to murder no advantage of defence of duress
R v Wright (2001) -
R v Martin (1989) -
R v Howe (1987) -
R v Gotts (1992) -
R v Ortiz (1986) -
R v Grahams (1982)-
R v Conway (1989) - Confirmed the existence of the duress
R v Gillick (1985) -

NECESSITY
Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2000) - Medical necessity
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) -- held that necessity was not a defence to
murder
DPP v Lynch Duress was a defence for murder (participant)
Abortion Act 1967 - Bourne (1938), Newton and Stungo (1958), Adams (1957)
terminally ill
R v Willer (1986); R v Conway (1989); R v Martin (1989) defence of necessity for
traffic offences

MISTAKE
Williams (Gladstone) (1984) mistake as to surround circumstance could be a
def
DPP v Morgan (1976) Mistake of fact will result in acquittal where no mens-rea
R v Majewski (1977) Mistake from voluntary intoxication as defence for only
specific, heavily criticise
R v OGardy (1987); R v OConnor (1991); R v Hatton (2005); R v G (2003)
Honest mistaken belief would negative direct or oblique intention would negative
mens rea
Woolin (1998) honest mistake

SELF DEFENCE
R v Williams (Gladstone) 1984) reasonable for self defence
Re A (Children) Conjoined twins reasonable force to prevent 1 injury many
R v Owino (1995) subjective interpretation

CONSENT
R v Jones (1987); horseplay, lawful sporting activities, medical and dental
treatment by doctors
R v Wilson (1996) Tattooing and branding for love on buttock
R v Dika; R v Gonzani; Tabassum (2000) consent to nature not quality of the act;

PROVOCATION
R v Duffy (1949) defined provocation
R v Ahluwalia (1992) Homicide Act 1957 did not provide a new definition of
provocation, it remain a common law and not statutory defence
Luc Thiet Thuan v the Queen (1997); R v Smith (Morgan) 2001 characteristics
attributable to a provoked D. All relevant characteristics
Attorney General for new Jersey v Holley (2005) Age and Sex as the only
characteristics
R v James (2006) Age and Sex as the only characteristics
R v Karimi Age and sex as the only characteristics
DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
R v Dunbar (1957) Defendant to prove on balance of probabilities
R v Dietschmann (2003) Drunkenness and diminished responsibility and
definition of provocation, it remain a common law and not statutory defence;

DISHONESTY - Ghosh Test

APPROPRIATION
Lawrence (1972) early principle on appropriation
Gomez (1993) - set the wide application
Hinks (2000) affirmed Gomez if there is dishonestly there is appropriation.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE
Morphitis v Salmon (1990) (a scratch on a scaffolding bar) were not considered
criminal damage; Blake v DPP (1993) Biblical quotation written on a concrete
pillar with a marker pen
A (A Juvenile) v R (1978) a young football supporter who spat a policeman coat
and

BURGLARY
Steven v Gourley (1859) a structure of considerable size and intended to be
permanent or at least endure for a considerable length of time;
R v Collins (1972) effective and substantial entry.
R v Ryan (1995) substantial entry
R v Smith and Jones (1976) D with permission to enter a building but exceed
the expressed or implied permission will enter as a trespasser. D who stole
fathers television set.

THEFT
R v Lloyd (1985) Permanently depriving deemed exist where the defendant
intended to return the goods in a fundamentally different change so that all their
value would have been lost
R v Fernandes (1995) Treating the property as ones own to dispose regardless
of the others right

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

R v Dawson (1976) when force has been used or threatened in robbery it is a

question for the jury to decide
R v Hale (1978) Force used after the appropriate has taken place would not
amount to robbery
R v Robbinson (1977) Honest belief in the D ownership of the property could
lead to acquittal.

ATTEMPT
R v Tosti (1977) Ds got to the scene of the attempted burglary and touch the
padlock. Held that the moment they started examining the padlock they moved
beyond planning and preparation to execution
R v Campbell (1991) D arrested within 10 yards of the post office he intended to
rob
R v Griffin (1993) - Definition of attempt Criminal Attempt Act 1981
R v Geddes (1996) D was found in the boys toilet of a school where he intend
to kidnap a pupil. The court held that in both cases they have not moved into
execution stage. No contact with the victim.

CONSIPIRACY
R v Banks (1873) It must be communicated
R v Tyrell (1894) The person that the law is designed to protect cannot be liable
for inciting that offence
DPP v Armstrong (2000) it was impossible to incite a police provocateur to
provide child pornography
R v Siracusa (1989) To play some part would include doing nothing to stop the
unlawful activity.

SEXUAL OFFENCES - RAPE

Billam (1986) Life sentence; Townsend (1995) touching or stroking is sexual
assault
Osman (2000) touching or stroking; Lambert (2002) reverse onus with the
presumption of innocence

RECENT CASES
R v Abu Hamza (2006) Convicted of terrorism abroad
R v Saik (2006) freed because he lacked mens rea when he exchange foreign
currency
R v Curtis (2006) not to over convict or under convict. The judge should leave
the option of manslaughter to the jury even where the parties agreed that it was
not necessary. D killed his girlfriend and claimed he lacks mens rea
R v Dhaliwal (2006) Bodily hard is restricted to known psychiatric illness
R v Hendy (2006) diminished responsibility and provocation - Dietschmann
(2003) had not propounded any new law but affirmed law existing since R v
Gittens (1984)
R v Smith (2006) cutting somebodys hair without permission is an assault
R v Atham (2006) who pleaded necessity for using cannabis failed in his
attempt
R v Mullaly (2006) who drove while drunk saying police were there
R v Mitchel (2004) lack of lawful excuse to remove clamp on a vehicle wrongly
packed
R v Sofoniou (2004) confirms the retroactive effect of s.1(3) of TAA 1996
Mortgage was a service
DPP v Santana-Bermudez (2004) you can by word and deed possess actus reas
when you exposed someone to a risk of injury which materialised
R v Willoughby (2005) unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter are not
mutually exclusive. D can be guilty by both route
R v Faqir Mohammed reasonable man
R v Claydon (2005) incitement cannot be made out where the incitee is legal
incapable
R v Hassan (2005) you can rely on duress where you voluntarily associate with
criminals
R v Wang (2005) the jury had no power to pre-empt the jury by directing it to
convict
R v Carey and others (2006) it was considered remote when D punched the
victim and she died of previously unknown heart attack 109 yards away