Law Paper 1 criminal cases

• R v Dythan (1979) ( duty to act due to public duty from an official position)


  Legal principle= The D was under a public duty to act due his official position.
• R v Evans (2009) Duty to act due to contribution


  Legal principle= The mother was under a duty to act as the victims parent. Also, the victims sister had a duty to care for her sister because she created/ contributed to the creation of the dangerous thing.
• R v Instan (1893) Duty to act due to assumed responsibility


  Legal principle= The D was under a duty to act as she assumed responsibility for the aunt by continuing to live at her house and be financially supported by her she was the only one aware of the condition of the aunt. The failure to act formed the necessary actus reus of manslaughter whilst the gangrene caused her death. The D’s actions accelerated the time of the aunts death.
• R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) Duty to act via a relationship


  Legal principle= The D’s were guilty of murder by omission, the father was under a duty to act based on his familial relationship. Proctor was also acting as a parent as in reality she was undertaking the role of the child’s mother.
• R v Adomako (1994) (Contractual duty to act)


  Legal principle= His failure to adequately perform his duties satisfied the actus reus of gross negligence manslaughter because he was under a contractual duty to act.
• Winzar v Chief constable of Kent (1983) (State of affairs)


  Legal principle= The elements of this offence required proof that the D was drunk on the highway as question of fact, nothing further.
• R v Kimsey (1996) (Legal causation)


  Legal principle= Whilst juries are often advised that the D must be the substantial cause of death. As long as the jury is sure that the D actions are a cause and that there was something more than a slight or a trifling link between the D’s actions and the Criminal consequences.
• R v White (1910) (Factual causation)


  Legal principle= The D could not be convicted of the under iof his mother as factually his actions did not cause her death as but for him poisoning her she would have died anyways due to her having a heart attack.
• R v Pagett (1983) (Legal causation and 3rd party intervention)


  Legal principle= ”causation” meaning that a person can be held responsible for the consequence of their actions.
• R v Smith (1959) (Legal causation and poor medical treatment)


  Legal principle= If at the time of death, the original wound is still an operating cause and a substantial cause, then the death was caused by the wound, irrelevant of the fact that some other cause of death is also present.
• R v Cheshire (1991) (legal causation and poor medical treatment)


  Legal principle= Even in cases where negligent medical treatment appears to be the immediate cause of the victims death, this should not prevent the original defendant still be regarded as the cause of death.
• R v Roberts (1971) (legal causation and actions of the victims)


  Legal principle= If a victim does something so unexpected in reaction to the act of a defendant that defendant cannot be said to have caused it in law, it could not be forseen by the reasonable man. Here the victims actions were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of what the defendant was doing, therefore he caused her actions, and the chain of causation was not broken.
• R v Holland (1841) (legal causation and neglect of the victim)


  Legal principle= Where the initial injury by the defendant causes the death of the victim it is an operating cause of death, it is irrelevant that the death could have been avoided by timely medical treatment.
• R v Hayward(1908) (legal causation and thin skull rule)


  Legal principle= The D’s actions remain the operating cause of the victims death even where death is only likely or accelerated due to the pre existing condition of the v, whether that condition be know or unknown.
• R v Inglis (2011) (mens rea and motive)


  Legal Principle= The law of murder does not distinguish between D’s who intended to kill out of love or intend to kill out of malice whilst motivated by mercy a mercy killing does not negate the requirements of Murder.
• R v Woollin (1998) (mens rea and indirect intent)


  Legal principle= A jury should be directed to not infer the necessary intention unless they feel unsure that death or SBH was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendants actions and that the defendants actions and the defendant appreciated that such was the case.
• R v Cunningham (1957) (mens Rea and recklessness)


  Legal principle= Any reference to the word ‘malice’ within an offence indicates that either intent or recklessness is required.
• R v Gnango (2011) (mens Rea and transferred malice)


  Legal principle= D was clearly guilty of murder under the operation of the principle of transferred malice, his malice of intent to kill moved from his intended victim to his unintended victim whose death he actually caused.
• R v Williams (2011) (mens Rea and strict liability)


  Legal principle= Whilst generally criminal offences require proof of an act alongside fault or blameworthInes the wording of the statute is clear, liability can be imposed without any proof or fault or blameworthy conduct. This was he offence that was created by parliament.
• Fagan v Metroplitan police commissioner (1968) (mens Rea and continuing act principle)


  Legal principle= Actus reus can continue through an action, there is no requirement that the mens Rea is also present at the start of the AR, it is enough that the MR is evident at the same point in the sense that is is superimposed.
• R v Thabo Meli (1954) (mens Rea and single transaction principle)


  Legal principle= It is not always appropriate to divide up what can be regarded as one series of acts provided that the AR and MR is proved within this series of acts this is sufficient to prove liability it is no defence to say they believed their guilty act was completed before in fact it was.
• Attorney general’s reference No3 of 1994 (1997) (murder and reasonable creature in being)


  Legal principle= A foetus has no recognition as a reasonable creature in being.
• R v Jewell (2014) (loss of control)


  Legal principle= The judge does not have to leave the defence of loss of control to the jury where they believe that no jury could properly conclude there is a basis for the defence.
• R v Clinton (2012) ( sexual infidelity and loss of control)


  Legal principle= However grave or proactive, sexual infidelity alone cannot be recognised as a qualifying trigger.
• R v Hatter(2013) (Loss of control and anger trigger)


  Legal principle= Generally the breakdown of the relationship will not meet the threshold requirements of the anger trigger to be considered justifiable although it was recognised that other circumstances can also be considered which may vary this fact.
• R v Christian(2018) (loss of control 3rd part of the test)


  Legal principle= A D will not have the defence for loss of control available where it is concluded that a person of the same sex and age would not have reacted in the extreme way the D did.
• R v Bryne (1960) (Diminished responsibility)


  Legal principle= The abnormality of mental functioning.
• R v Joyce and Kay (2017) (Diminished responsibility and abnormality and intoxication)


  Legal principle= The D was intoxicated at the time of the killing and suffers from a recognised medical condition called ‘alcohol dependancy syndrome.’
• R v Church (1966) (Unlawful act manslaughter and dangerousness)


  Legal principle= An unlawful act causing death is not enough to have found a conviction for manslaughter, it must be proved that the act was dangerous.
• R v Cato (1976) (Unlawful act manslaughter-causation and administration of noxious substance)


  Legal principle= The consent of the V was immaterial and provides no defence to a D, if the D’s unlawful act of administering a noxious substance accelerated or contributed to the V death, then causation is established irrelevant of any preceding consent.
• R v Kennedy(2007) (Unlawful act manslaughter and self injection)


  Legal principle= It was the act of self injection that caused the V death and this broke the chain of causation between any actions of the D and the death of the V
• R v Ireland (1997) (assault)


  Legal principle= Lord Steyn confirmed that silent phone calls can constitute an assault where it causes the victim to apprehend fear.
• R v Logden (1976) (Assault)


  Legal principle= A D may be guilty of assault despite the fact that they did not have the means, nor intent of carrying out any threat.
• R v Thomas (1985) (Battery)


  Legal principle= The judge clarified that touching someone’s clothes whilst they are wearing them is like equivalent to touching the person.
• R v Abbas (2009) (Assault occasioning ABH)


  Legal principle= Loss of consciousness is evidence of harm sufficient to amount to ABH.
• R v Chan Fook (1994) (Psychiatric injury)


  Legal principle= ABH is not limited to physical injury of the flesh and body, it can include injury in the psychiatric form, however it does not include mere emotions such as fear or distress nor panic as such states of mind that are themselves evidence of some identifiable clinical conditions.
• R v Saunders (1985) (GBH)

  Legal principle= GBH requires proof of ‘serious injury’ , it is not necessary for the word ‘really’ to precede the phrase serious injury
• R v Dica (2004) (GBH)


  Legal principle= Knowingly or recklessly transmitting a serious sexual disease to a person who the risk is concealed is equal to s.20 GBH. If however, the V is aware of the risks and consents to this risk than the consent will provide a defence.