Criminal Law Cases

1. Facts: • Larsonneur, a French national, was lawfully in the UK but was later deported to Ireland. • Upon arrival in Ireland, authorities deported her back to the UK against her will. • Upon her forced return to the UK, she was charged under the Aliens Order for being in the UK

1. Facts: • Winzar, while intoxicated, was found in a hospital. • Refused to leave when requested by hospital staff. • Police were called and physically removed him from the hospital, placing him on a nearby highway. • Charged with the offence of being “drunk on a highway.” 2. Outcome: • Winzar was convicted of

1. Facts: • The defendant (the son) attempted to poison his mother by putting poison in her drink. • Mother died from a heart attack before the poison could take effect. • Medical evidence showed the heart attack was unrelated to the poisoning attempt. 2. Outcome: • White was not found guilty of murder

1. Facts: • Hughes was driving without a full license or insurance. • The victim (V) was driving erratically, crossed onto the wrong side of the road, and collided with Hughes. • Hughes’s driving was considered faultless, and V was deemed entirely responsible for their own death. 2. Outcome: • Hughes was acquitted of

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) assaulted the victim (V), leaving V unconscious on a deserted beach. • Before V could regain consciousness, the tide came in, and V drowned. 2. Outcome: • The court held that the chain of causation was not broken. • D was found liable for V’s death as

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) prepared a syringe of heroin for the victim (V). • V injected himself with the heroin and died shortly afterward. • D was initially convicted of manslaughter. 2. Outcome: • The Court of Appeal (CoA) held that D’s act of preparing the syringe did not break the chain

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) was involved in a police siege and took his girlfriend hostage. • During the standoff, a shootout began between D and the police. • In the course of the exchange, D’s girlfriend was killed by the police gunfire. 2. Outcome: • D was convicted of murder. • The court

1. Facts: • Oil leaked into a river after a trespasser turned on an unattended oil tap. • The tap had no lock, which allowed the trespasser to access it easily. • The company was held liable for the environmental damage caused by the oil spill. 2. Outcome: • Lord Hoffmann ruled that for

1. Facts: • Defendant (D) shot the victim (V), who was recovering in hospital. • V subsequently died from complications related to a tracheotomy, which was negligently performed by medical staff. • D was convicted of murder. 2. Outcome: • The Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld D’s conviction, ruling that the negligence of the

1. Facts: • The victim (V) was stabbed and initially treated at the hospital. • Eight days later, when the original wound was nearly healed, V was administered antibiotics to which he was known to be allergic. • V died as a result of this allergic reaction to the antibiotics. 2. Outcome: • The

1. Facts: • The victim (V) was stabbed and subsequently dropped twice while being transported to the hospital. • At the hospital, medical staff failed to notice V’s pierced lung. • V died from complications related to the injury and the delayed medical treatment. 2. Outcome: • The defendant (D) was convicted of murder.

1. Facts: • The defendant (D), while driving, made suggestive remarks to his passenger and attempted to remove her coat. • The passenger (V), feeling threatened, jumped out of the moving car and sustained injuries. 2. Outcome: • The Court of Appeal (CoA) held that the driver (D) was liable for assault occasioning

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) stabbed the victim (V), causing a lung injury. • V was a Jehovah’s Witness and refused a blood transfusion, which was necessary to treat the injury. • V died as a result of not receiving the transfusion. • D was charged with manslaughter. 2. Outcome: • D was

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) poured acid on her ex-boyfriend (V). • V was left in a permanent state of severe pain. • V applied for and was granted voluntary euthanasia under Belgian law, which is illegal in the UK. • D was prosecuted for murder in the UK. 2. Outcome: • D’s

1. Facts: • Pittwood was employed to operate a gate that allowed carts to cross a railway track. • He failed to lower the gate after a cart had passed, leaving it open. • A train subsequently collided with a cart, leading to the death of the train driver. 2. Outcome: • Pittwood was

1. Facts: • Miller fell asleep while smoking a cigarette. • The cigarette ignited a fire in the building. • Upon waking up, Miller noticed the fire but did nothing to extinguish it or alert anyone. 2. Outcome: • Miller was convicted of arson. • The court held that Miller’s failure to act after

1. Facts: • Stone and his mistress, Dobinson, had a duty of care for Stone’s sister, Fanny, who suffered from mental health issues. • Fanny’s condition deteriorated significantly over time. • Despite their awareness of her worsening condition, Stone and Dobinson failed to ensure that she received necessary medical attention. • Fanny

1. Facts: • The defendant, Bowditch, met a woman at a nightclub. • They went to the beach together, where the woman accidentally fell into the sea. • Instead of attempting to assist her, Bowditch walked away, leaving her to drown. 2. Outcome: • Bowditch was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. • The court found

1. Facts: • A police officer, Dytham, witnessed a bouncer kicking a man to death. • Despite being present and observing the violent assault, Dytham did nothing to intervene or protect the victim. 2. Outcome: • Dytham was convicted of misconduct in public office. • The conviction was based on his failure to act

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) accidentally drove his car onto a police officer’s foot. • Upon realising the situation, D intentionally delayed moving the car off the officer’s foot. 2. Outcome: • The court upheld D’s conviction for assaulting a police officer. • It was determined that the delay in moving the

1. Facts: • A young girl placed her hand on the defendant’s (D’s) genitals. • D did not attempt to remove the girl’s hand. 2. Outcome: • D was found guilty of a sexual offence. • The court held that D’s inaction in removing the girl’s hand constituted an

1. Facts: • Tony Bland, who was in a persistent vegetative state, could neither move nor exhibit any response. • The doctors sought legal advice on whether they would be liable for murder if they ceased feeding Bland without his consent. • There was no possibility of improvement in Bland’s condition, and continuing

1. Facts: • Police officer requested Santana-Bermudez to undergo a search. • Santana-Bermudez was asked to remove all items from his pockets. • During the search, the officer injured her finger on a needle that Santana-Bermudez had failed to disclose. 2. Outcome: • Santana-Bermudez was convicted of assault by omission. • The court held that

1. Facts: • Scenario: D’s girlfriend took drugs and subsequently died. D failed to call medical services despite recording her deteriorating condition over a 5-6 hour period. • Key Issue: Whether D’s failure to call for help was an operating and significant cause of V’s death, given she had

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) encouraged the victim (V) to drink alcohol, pretending to be in a caring relationship. • V died from alcohol toxicity. 2. Outcome: • D was convicted of murder. • The Kennedy defence, which argues that the victim’s actions were free, voluntary, and informed, failed in this case. 3.

Key Points To Note • What if the defendant (D) laid the tip of a needle against the skin of the victim (V) over a vein. • And V ultimately pressed the plunger, injecting the substance. • The key point established was that D is not automatically acquitted just because V pressed the

1. Facts: • The defendant (Gnango) was involved in a gunfight with another person, referred to as X. • During the gunfight, X aimed at Gnango but missed, and the bullet struck and killed a passer-by. • Gnango was charged with aiding and abetting the murder of the passer-by. 2. Outcome: • The court

1. Facts: • Smith, the defendant, was driving his car when a police officer jumped onto it. • Smith accelerated the vehicle to force the officer off, resulting in the officer falling and dying from the injuries. 2. Outcome: • Smith was convicted of murder. • The court applied an objective test to determine

1. Facts: • Hyam set fire to a newspaper and placed it in a letterbox. • The fire spread, resulting in the burning down of a house and the deaths of two children. • Hyam’s intention was to frighten, not to kill. 2. Outcome: • Hyam was convicted of murder. • Despite not intending

1. Facts: • The defendant (Moloney) and his stepfather were drinking heavily. • During a drunken argument, Moloney accidentally fired a gun, killing his stepfather. 2. Outcome: • The Court of Appeal substituted Moloney’s murder conviction with manslaughter. • The court held that Moloney did not have the necessary intention for murder. 3. Impact

1. Facts: • During a miners’ strike, D1 and D2 threw a concrete block from a bridge onto a motorway below. • The block struck a taxi, killing a working miner and the taxi driver. • The defendants claimed their intention was only to block the road, not to cause harm. 2. Outcome:

1. Facts: • D poured petrol through the letterbox of a house and ignited it with the intent to frighten the occupants. • The fire led to the death of a child in the house. • It was virtually certain that the act of setting the fire would result in serious injury or

1. Facts: • The defendant (Woollin) became frustrated with his baby’s crying. • He threw the baby across the room, resulting in the baby’s death. 2. Outcome: • The House of Lords substituted Woollin’s murder conviction with manslaughter. • The court confirmed the use of the “virtual certainty” test established in R v

1. Facts: • Matthews and Alleyne, two boys, threw another teenager off a bridge into a river. • The teenager, who could not swim, drowned as a result. • The defendants claimed they did not intend to kill or seriously injure the teenager. 2. Outcome: • The defendants were charged with murder. • The jury

1. Facts: • Elliot, a 14-year-old with learning difficulties, accidentally burned down a garden shed. • Due to his learning difficulties, Elliot did not foresee any risk associated with his actions. 2. Outcome: • Elliot was convicted of arson for recklessly causing damage to the shed. • The court held that despite his inability

1. Facts: • Two young boys accidentally set fire to a supermarket, causing significant damage. • Neither of the boys intended to cause damage nor were they reckless regarding the risk of damage. 2. Outcome: • The House of Lords (HoL) overturned the previous conviction, ruling the boys not guilty. • The decision overruled

1. Facts: • The defendant smashed a public telephone in a telephone box. • Parker was so angry that he did not consider the damage he was causing to the telephone. 2. Outcome: • Parker was convicted despite his claim that he did not consciously recognise the potential damage. • The court held that

1. Facts: • The defendants believed they had killed the victim (V) and, to cover up the crime, rolled V’s body down a cliff. • V actually survived the fall but later died from exposure (hypothermia). 2. Outcome: • The defendants were convicted of murder. • The court ruled that the acts were part

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) assaulted the victim (V), knocking her unconscious. • Believing she was dead, D discarded her body into a river. • It was later revealed that V actually died from drowning. 2. Outcome: • D was convicted of constructive manslaughter. • The court held that the unlawful act of assaulting

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) swung a belt at Victim 1 (V1) during an altercation. • V1 moved away, causing the belt to strike and injure Victim 2 (V2) instead. 2. Outcome: • D was held liable for the assault and injury inflicted on V2. • The court ruled that the intent to

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) threw a stone intending to hit Victim (V). • The stone missed V but shattered a nearby window instead. 2. Outcome: • D was not found liable for the damage to the window. • The court held that the intention to commit an offence against a person could

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) stabbed his pregnant girlfriend, causing a wound that led to the premature birth of the baby. • The baby died some time after birth due to complications resulting from the injury. • D was charged with the murder of the baby. 2. Outcome: • D was not found

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) was a burglar who attacked an elderly lady (V) during the commission of the burglary. • D admitted that he intended to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) to V. 2. Outcome: • The Court of Appeal (CoA) held that the intent to cause GBH was sufficient to

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) struck the victim (V) with a chair during an altercation. • V died as a result of the injuries inflicted by D. 2. Outcome: • The House of Lords (HoL) convicted D of murder. • The court determined that the intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH) was

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) was convicted of grievous bodily harm (GBH) for causing multiple bruises to a young girl after dropping her. • The injuries were assessed in the context of the victim’s age and physical characteristics. 2. Outcome: • The Court of Appeal allowed D’s appeal. • It was determined

1. Facts: • During an eye operation, an oxygen pipe became disconnected, leading to the patient’s death. • The defendant (D), an anaesthetist, was found to have breached their duty of care, which was deemed grossly negligent. 2. Outcome: • D was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter by a majority verdict of

1. Facts: • A patient developed an undiagnosed infection and later died of toxic shock. • The two doctors involved failed to inquire about test results or perform necessary blood tests. • Both doctors were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter (GN manslaughter). 2. Outcome: • The Court of Appeal confirmed that the precedent set

1. Facts: • Defendant: Optometrist • Breach: Negligently failed to perform a required eye examination. • Consequences: Five years later, the patient died from a condition that would have been detected had the examination been conducted. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Acquitted of gross negligence manslaughter. • Reasoning: The court found that the risk of death

1. Facts: • Defendant: Dr. Bawa-Garba • Breach: Repeated mistakes over a period of time fell below the standard of care required in her medical practice. • Consequences: Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter following the death of a patient due to a series of failures in care. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Convicted of gross

1. Facts: • Defendant: Older sister of the victim • Action: Provided her younger sister (V) with prohibited drugs. • Failure: Did not call emergency services when V overdosed. • Consequences: V died from the drug overdose. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. • Reasoning: The Court of Appeal held that the older

1. Facts: • Defendant: Appellant, owner of an old disused pub. • Action: Requested Mr. Drury to help set fire to the pub to claim on the insurance. • Incident: An explosion occurred during the fire, leading to the collapse of the building and the death of Mr. Drury. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Convicted

1. Facts: • Defendant: D • Incident: D drove off while V was still partially in the car, with V’s head protruding out. • Result: V’s head was crushed by the rear wheel of the car. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Convicted of reckless manslaughter. • Reasoning: The court found that D’s driving, in

1. Facts: • Incident: The Defendant (D) was accused of queue jumping. • Action: D pushed X. • Consequence: X fell into V, causing V to hit his head and die. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Convicted of constructive manslaughter. • Legal Principle: The court applied the doctrine of transferred malice, holding D liable for V’s

1. Facts: • D broke into a house. • D verbally abused V and then left. • Within 90 minutes of the incident, V died. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Convicted of constructive manslaughter. • Legal Basis: The unlawful act was burglary. • Appeal: ◦ Argument: D argued he did not have knowledge of V’s condition when the

1. Facts: • Scenario: D asked V if she wanted to have sex and then grabbed her trousers, pulling her towards him. V ran home, and D was subsequently arrested. • Charges: D was charged with sexual assault. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The court held that the touching of V’s clothes could amount

1. Facts: • Scenario: D had a foot fetish and attempted to remove a girl’s shoes. • Charges: D was involved in an incident where he tried to engage in this behaviour but was not charged with sexual assault. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The court found that D’s actions did not constitute sexual

1. Facts: • Scenario: D and V had been in a sexual relationship for three months, which involved past violence. • Issue: D claimed that V had consented to sexual activity, while V stated that she had not given consent. • Charges: D was convicted despite his claim. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was

Key Points in This Case • Scenario: The case involved assessing a person’s capacity to consent. • Key Considerations: To consent, an individual must understand: ◦ The mechanics of the act ◦ Potential consequences, including pregnancy and health risks ◦ The concept of consent itself • The court emphasised that for valid consent, a person must

1. Facts: • Scenario: The case addressed whether drunkenness affects the validity of consent. • Key Point: Drunken consent is still considered consent. • Issue: Determining the level of intoxication that affects consent is a matter for the jury to decide. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The court upheld the principle that consent given while

1. Facts: • Scenario: V was very drunk, got into a car with D, and could not recall the incident but believed she had not consented. • Charges: D was charged with rape. • Key Issue: The problem of vitiating consent post-incident. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The court followed Bree, highlighting that there is

1. Facts: • Scenario: D, diagnosed with schizophrenia, raped his partner while under the delusion that he had a ‘sexual healing power’. • Key Issue: The impact of delusional beliefs on consent and criminal responsibility. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The court held that delusional beliefs alone do not exclude a person from liability

1. Facts: • Scenario: V had sex with D in exchange for money to buy food. • Key Issue: Determining whether such an arrangement constitutes rape or an agreement to sexual activity. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted of rape. The court examined whether there was ‘willing submission’ in the exchange of

1. Facts: • Scenario: D, in a sexual relationship with V, pretended to be a police officer via text and demanded sex, threatening a fine if she refused. • Key Issue: Application of s.74 and s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act in cases of deception. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was

1. Facts: • Scenario: D, posing as a 20-year-old girl online, tricked his daughter’s ex-boyfriend into masturbating on camera to humiliate him. • Key Issue: Application of s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act concerning deception. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted. The court interpreted deception broadly to include not only

1. Facts: • Scenario: D, posing as another man, threatened to email photos of his girlfriend to her colleagues unless she performed sexual acts online. • Key Issue: Whether s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act applied in this case. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The appeal was allowed, and s.76 did not

1. Facts: • Scenario: D assured the woman he would wear a condom, but did not, leading to his conviction under s.76 of the Sexual Offences Act. • Key Issue: Deception regarding the ‘nature’ of the act. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The court convicted D under s.76 for deceiving the woman

Key Points in This Case • Scenario: The case examined whether the act of ejaculation alone constitutes rape. • Key Issue: Whether ejaculation without explicit consent qualifies as rape. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The act of ejaculation alone, without consent, is sufficient for a conviction of rape. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Clarification of

1. Facts: • Scenario: D, who was female, deceived V into believing they were a male named ‘Scott’ during an online relationship. V would not have consented had she known D’s true gender. • Key Issue: Whether the deception regarding gender impacts the validity of consent under s.74 of the Sexual

1. Facts: • Scenario: D, an undercover police officer, formed a relationship with an activist while concealing his true identity. After revealing his true identity, he was not convicted. • Key Issue: Whether the deception about identity impacts the legitimacy of consent and criminal liability. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The officer was not

1. Facts: • Scenario: D and his girlfriend placed V, who was intoxicated, to bed. D touched her sexually while she was asleep. Earlier, V had made sexual advances at a party. • Key Issue: Whether D reasonably believed V consented to the sexual act. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted. The

1. Facts: • Scenario: Soldiers were invited by their sergeant to have sex with his wife. The sergeant told them that although his wife would resist, she actually liked it. The soldiers believed she consented. • Key Issue: Whether the soldiers’ belief in consent, based on the sergeant’s comments, was sufficient

1. Facts: • Scenario: D hired a prostitute but did not pay her. He was convicted of rape based on the fact that she had not consented to sexual activity without payment. • Key Issue: Whether deception about the purpose of the sexual act (i.e., not paying) constitutes a lack of

1. Facts: • Scenario: D falsely claimed to have had a vasectomy to V. Based on this lie, V consented to sex and later became pregnant. • Key Issue: Whether a lie about fertility negates consent to sexual activity. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The court quashed the conviction of rape. It distinguished this

1. Facts: • Scenario: A taxi driver, after a ride, took more money from a tourist than required. The tourist opened his wallet to pay, but the driver took more than the agreed fare. • Issue: Whether the driver’s action constituted theft despite having the owner’s consent to take money. 2. Outcome:

1. Facts: • Scenario: The defendant switched price labels on items in a store to purchase them at a cheaper price. • Issue: Whether this act constituted theft, given the defendant argued they had implied consent from the owner. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The defendant was charged with theft. The court found that

1. Facts: • Scenario: The defendant, an assistant shop manager, received two stolen cheques as payment for goods and persuaded his manager to accept them by lying about their validity. • Issue: Whether the act constituted theft despite having the manager’s consent. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The defendant was charged with theft. The

1. Facts: • Scenario: The victim (V) was in prison, and his friend took someone to V’s flat, offering V’s goods for sale. The friend was charged with theft. • Issue: Whether offering to sell goods without physically touching them constitutes appropriation and thus theft. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The court held that

1. Facts: • Scenario: The defendant (D) worked at a care home where the victim (V) was a resident. D persuaded V to withdraw £300 each day, with V’s consent, and deposit it into her own account. • Issue: Whether the acceptance of a gift, given with the owner’s consent, could constitute

1. Facts: • Scenario: The defendant (D) found a way into an examination room and took a copy of an examination paper to use for cheating. • Issue: Whether the information contained in the examination paper could be considered property under the Theft Act 1968. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The appeal was allowed,

1. Facts: • Scenario: The defendant’s (D’s) car was taken by the police and brought to the police station. D drove off with the car without obtaining permission from the police. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was acquitted of theft. Although D did not have permission to take the car from the

1. Facts: • Scenario: The defendant (D) owned a clock that he left with the victim (V) as a deposit for the security for the price of other unpaid goods. D later took the clock back when no one was looking. 2. Outcome: • Decision: This act was considered theft by the

1. Facts: • The defendant (D) took his car to a garage for repair. Later, he re-took the car without paying for the repairs. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted of theft because the garage had lawful control of the car. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: This case emphasises the

1. Facts: • A travel agent (D) received money from clients for flights, which he used for business expenses. D’s business collapsed, and no refund was made to the clients. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was initially convicted of theft. However, on appeal, the conviction was overturned. The court held that

1. Facts: • Scenario: D violently hijacked V’s car but later abandoned it a few miles away. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D’s conviction for robbery was quashed. The court held that robbery requires theft and the intention of permanent deprivation, which was not established in this case. 3. Impact and

1. Facts: • D asked V’s at a train station for their travel cards and then re-sold them. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted of theft. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: The case underscores that obtaining property through deceit with the intention to permanently deprive the owner constitutes theft.

Key Points To Note • The court considered the role of the judge in defining dishonesty to the jury. • The court held that it was unnecessary and undesirable for the judge to define dishonesty to the jury, suggesting an objective test for dishonesty. 2. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: The case

1. Facts: • D, a surgeon, claimed fees for work that others had carried out. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted of theft. The court introduced a two-part test for dishonesty: 1. Whether the act was objectively dishonest. 2. If yes, then ask if it was subjectively dishonest. 3. Impact and

1. Facts: • D, a gambler, used a technique called ‘edge sorting’ to win millions at a casino. The casino refused to pay, claiming the method was cheating. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was found to have cheated. The court removed the second subjective limb of the Ghosh test for dishonesty. 3.

1. Facts: • V was ‘jostled’ during a theft. 2. Outcome: • Decision: Only theft was charged. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: The case highlights that minor physical interactions during a theft, such as jostling, do not necessarily elevate the offence to robbery. • Implications: This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing

1. Facts: • D nudged V while taking V’s wallet. 2. Outcome: • Decision: This act amounted to robbery, as the force used was deemed sufficient. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: The case established that even a slight nudge can constitute sufficient force for robbery. • Implications: The decision broadens the

1. Facts: • D snatched a cigarette from V’s mouth. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The act was held not to constitute robbery, applying the de minimis principle. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: This case demonstrates the application of the de minimis principle, where minor or trivial acts of force do

1. Facts: • Scenario: D climbed a ladder intending to commit rape. V, mistaking D for her boyfriend, invited him in. 2. Outcome: • Decision: The House of Lords held that D did not enter as a trespasser since he had V’s permission to enter. D must have known he was trespassing

1. Facts: • D leaned the top half of his body through a shop window in order to steal. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was charged with burglary. The court held that D had ‘entered’ the building, which was sufficient to effect the burglary. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: This case

1. Facts: • Scenario: D had his father’s permission to enter the house. D, along with D2, entered the house to steal. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was held to have exceeded his permission and was charged with burglary. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: The case illustrates that a person

Key Points To Note • A freezer container had not been moved for over two years. • Decision: The freezer container was held to be a building. 2. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: The case extends the definition of a building to include structures that are intended to be permanent or have

1. Facts: • D entered the attendant’s area at a checkout to look for money. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted of burglary for entering part of a building with intent to steal. The counter area was clearly out of bounds. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: This case demonstrates

1. Facts: • D paid for goods with a stolen credit card, knowing that the authorisation had been withdrawn. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted of fraud. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: This case highlights that using a credit card with knowledge of unauthorised status constitutes fraud. • Implications: The decision

1. Facts: • D, a rail employee, believed he could make better sandwiches than British Rail and made and sold his own sandwiches on the train. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was convicted of fraud for obtaining customers’ money by deception. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: The case illustrates that selling

1. Facts: • D sent a begging letter to a priest, pretending to be someone poor. The priest knew who it was but sent the money anyway. 2. Outcome: • Decision: D was charged, but it was held that he did not obtain the property by deception. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal

1. Facts: • D dressed in Oxford University attire to get a discount in a shop. 2. Outcome: • Decision: This amounted to false representation. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: Under s.2(4) of the Fraud Act 2006, representation can be express or implied. • Implications: This case illustrates how even

1. Facts: • Ds ran a corner shop where V bought his lottery tickets. One day, V’s ticket won, but Ds falsely told him he had lost and then claimed the money for themselves. 2. Outcome: • Decision: Ds were guilty of fraud. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: This case

1. Facts: • D failed to disclose criminal convictions when applying for a job. 2. Outcome: • Decision: Appears to create strict liability regarding the existence of a duty to disclose. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: Under the Fraud Act 2006, failing to disclose information can constitute fraud only when there

Key Points To Note • Severe difficulties hearing and speaking. • Would be classified as unfit to stand trial. 2. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: Establishes criteria for determining fitness to stand trial based on the defendant’s ability to hear and speak. • Implications: This case set a precedent for assessing defendants’ capabilities

Key Points To Note • Cases involving defendants with severe mental or physical incapacities. • Such cases pose an “inescapable public, moral and human rights dilemma” as noted by Lord Bingham. 2. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: Highlights the complexities and ethical considerations in dealing with defendants unfit for trial. • Implications: This

1. Facts: • Scenario: D, suffering from an insane delusion, believed there was a conspiracy against him. Planned to kill Prime Minister Robert Peel but instead killed Peel’s private secretary. • Outcome: Acquitted of murder; confirmed he was insane. 2. M’Naghten Test: • Purpose: Establishing insanity. • Criteria: ◦ Suffering from a defect

1. Facts: • D attempted to kill his neighbour after consuming a large amount of drugs. • D had no recollection of the events. 2. Outcome: • D could not use voluntary intoxication or insanity as a defence. • Doctors stated that the drug-induced detachment from reality did not constitute a “disease of the

1. Facts: • D assisted his suicidal wife in taking an overdose, subsequently claiming insanity. • D was aware of the legal consequences of his actions. 2. Outcome: • D was convicted of murder. • The court held that the use of the word “wrong” in the insanity defence refers to the legal unlawfulness

1. Facts: • D was convicted of attempted murder of three family members. • D argued his delusion prevented him from knowing the act was wrong, as “wrong” means both legally and morally wrong by the standard of a reasonable person. • D had a long history of mental health problems; four psychiatrists

1. Facts: • D attacked his wife during a blackout caused by arteriosclerosis, leading to a temporary loss of consciousness. 2. Outcome: • D was found to be insane under the McNaughton rules. • The court stated that a “disease of the mind” referred to the mental faculties of reason, memory, and understanding,

1. Facts: • D killed someone during an epileptic fit and claimed he was not responsible due to his condition. 2. Outcome: • D was convicted of murder. • The court defined “disease of the mind” as a disorder of brain functions lasting longer than a day. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Definition of

1. Facts: • D was convicted of ABH after attacking someone during an epileptic fit. • D argued that he should have been able to plead automatism instead of insanity. 2. Outcome: • The court held that epilepsy is a disease of the mind within the meaning of the McNaughton rules. • D was

1. Facts: • A truck driver (D) was driving for a prolonged period and steered onto the hard shoulder, killing two people in a van. • D claimed he had been driving without awareness (automatism). 2. Outcome: • D was initially acquitted. • On appeal, Lord Taylor stated that automatism requires a total destruction

1. Facts: • D, a diabetic, entered a hypoglycaemic episode (low blood sugar) due to insulin injection. • Suffered a fit induced by diabetes and attacked V. 2. Outcome: • Conviction was quashed. • The court held that the hypoglycaemia was caused by the external administration of insulin, not by the diabetes itself. 3.

1. Facts: • D, a diabetic, was found driving a stolen car while in a state of hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar). • Failed to take insulin due to stress and depression. 2. Outcome: • D was found not guilty by reason of insanity. • The court held that hyperglycaemia, caused by the underlying diabetes

1. Facts: • D was raped and subsequently took part in a robbery. • Raised the defence of automatism, claiming she was suffering from PTSD due to the rape. 2. Outcome: • D was not charged. • The court considered whether PTSD from rape was a sufficient external factor for automatism. 3. Impact and

1. Facts: • D assaulted a police officer while voluntarily intoxicated. 2. Outcome: • Conviction for ABH was upheld. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Distinction Between Specific and Basic Intent: ◦ Specific Intent: Voluntary intoxication can be a defence if it negates the specific intent required for the offence (e.g., murder). ◦ Basic Intent:

1. Facts: • D, while voluntarily intoxicated, head-butted V three times, killing him. • Claimed he mistakenly believed he was acting in self-defence. 2. Outcome: • Conviction for murder was substituted with manslaughter under diminished responsibility (DR). 3. Impact and Analysis: • Mistaken Belief: Voluntary intoxication leading to a mistaken belief in self-defence does

1. Facts: • D’s aunt died, significantly affecting him. • While intoxicated, D killed a friend he accused of breaking a watch given by his aunt. 2. Outcome: • Conviction for murder was substituted with manslaughter under diminished responsibility (DR). 3. Impact and Analysis: • Combination of Factors: Considered the combined effect of

1. Facts: • D drank wine that had a greater effect on him than anticipated. • D was convicted of committing burglary and sexual offences while intoxicated. 2. Outcome: • Conviction upheld. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Narrow Scope: Reinforced the principle that voluntary intoxication, even if the effects are stronger than expected, does

1. Facts: • D was involuntarily intoxicated. 2. Outcome: • Recognised involuntary intoxication could be an outright defence. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Defence of Involuntary Intoxication: Established that involuntary intoxication, where the defendant has no control over their state, could be a complete defence, leading to an acquittal. • Comparison to Kingston 1995:

1. Facts: • D was involuntarily intoxicated and subsequently assaulted an underaged V. • D’s drink was spiked, leading to loss of inhibitions and committing the offence. 2. Outcome: • CoA quashed the conviction, citing loss of inhibitions due to drugging. • HoL upheld the conviction, stating D had the necessary mens rea. 3.

1. Facts: • D was heavily intoxicated, which led to a psychotic episode. • The day after the intoxication, D attacked V, believing V was a terrorist. • D argued that intoxication should not apply as it was no longer in his system. 2. Outcome: • The court held that the phrase “attributable to

1. Facts: • During a church meeting, D threatened violence. • D approached with the intent to inflict violence but was stopped before causing harm. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Accused of assault. • Reasoning: The court found that there was an assault because D had the means of carrying the threat into effect, demonstrating

1. Facts: • Scenario: D jostled C while trying to pass in a narrow street. • Issue: Whether this action constituted battery. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: Convicted of battery. • Reasoning: The court held that any touching in anger, no matter how slight, constitutes battery. If the touching occurred without any anger, it would

1. Facts: • Scenario: D’s wife admitted to having an affair. He taunted here by saying that he was suicidal. • Action: D killed his wife. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: D’s appeal was allowed. • Reasoning: The court held that while sexual infidelity itself cannot be a qualifying trigger for loss of control,

1. Facts: • Scenario: D’s wife suffered from an incurable medical condition and repeatedly begged D to kill her. • Action: D asphyxiated his wife with a pillow. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: D was convicted of murder. • Reasoning: The court held that the loss of self-control (LOSC) defence was not applicable because LOSC

1. Facts: • Scenario: D committed the murder of V. • Evidence: D presented evidence of severe mental illnesses. 2. Outcome: • Verdict: D’s conviction for murder was quashed. • Substitution: The conviction was substituted for manslaughter. 3. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: ◦ Diminished Responsibility: This case highlights the application of the defence of

1. Facts: • Scenario: D was in an abusive relationship where V controlled her money and friends. • Action: D killed V by striking him repeatedly with a hammer. 2. Outcome: • Initial Conviction: D was convicted of murder. • Appeal: In 2017, Justice for Women argued for new evidence. • Final Decision: D successfully

1. Facts: • Scenario: D had consensual sex with women while knowing he was HIV positive. • Consequence: The women contracted HIV as a result. 2. Outcome: • Initial Conviction: D was convicted of inflicting GBH under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA). • Appeal: D argued that the women

1. Facts: • Scenario: D engaged in sexual activities with women while knowing he was HIV positive. • Consequence: The women were unaware of D’s HIV status and subsequently contracted the virus. 2. Outcome: • Conviction: D was convicted under s.20 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) for inflicting grievous

1. Facts: • Scenario: A group of gay men participated in consensual sado-masochistic sexual activities involving physical harm. • Charges: They were convicted under s.20 and s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) for causing actual bodily harm (ABH) and grievous bodily harm (GBH). 2. Outcome: • Decision: The

1. Facts: • Scenario: Wilson (D) branded his initials on his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife at her request. • Charges: Convicted under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) for causing actual bodily harm (ABH). 2. Outcome: • Decision: The appeal was allowed. • Rationale: The court distinguished this

1. Facts: • Scenario: D seriously injured his fiancé during sado-masochistic behaviour. Incidents included pouring fuel on her breast and lighting it. • Charges: Convicted of causing actual bodily harm (ABH). 2. Outcome: • Decision: The conviction for ABH was upheld. • Rationale: The court distinguished this case from R v Wilson based on

Key Points to Note • Removed the doctrine of joint enterprise. • Now an accessory must have intended to assist the principal offence, not merely foreseen it. 2. Impact and Analysis: • Legal Principle: ◦ Principle: The person who commits the actus reus. ◦ Accomplice: Those who aid, abet, counsel, or procure the offence. • Implications:

1. Facts: • Nicklinson suffered a severe stroke, leaving him completely paralysed. • He sought a legal declaration that it would be lawful for someone to assist him in ending his life. • Argued that this was part of his right to a private life under Article 8 of the ECHR. 2. Outcome: