Summary list of criminal cases needed for A level law. Includes case name, topic linked, facts and point of law. An essential to help you remember all the cases needed to boost your grade!
CASE NAME TOPIC FACTS POINT OF LAW
R v Blake (1962) Sentencing
R v Winkler (2004) Sentencing
Fagan v Metropolitan Actus Reus – Causation Fagan asked by police to The coincidence of actus
Police Commissioner pull into parking space, reus and mens rea can be
(1968) ran over foot by accident, in a continuing act.
refused to remove vehicle Although there was not
from foot when asked actus reus and mens rea
at the start of the offence,
at some point these
coincided.
Thabo Meli (1954) Actus Reus – Causation Group attacked V and Continuing act
thinking he was dead
throwing him off cliff, V
had actually survived the
ordeal and later died of
exposure.
Hill v Baxter (1958) Actus Reus – Causation D was charged with Voluntary act
dangerous driving but
claimed he had no
memory from an earlier
point in his journey to
immediately after the
incident due to illness
Larsonneur (1933) Actus Reus – Causation French national deported No mens rea for the act
against her will from but still convicted,
Ireland to England, involuntary act
considered an ‘illegal
alien’ (immigrant) so
charged.
White (1910) Actus Reus - Causation D poisoned mother’s drink Established ‘but for’ test –
intending to kill her, would the actions have
medical reports of her occurred by for the acts of
death revealed the cause the defendants, not liable
to be heart attack not if yes. White convicted for
poisoning. attempted murder as
could not be liable for the
death.
Pagett (1983) Actus Reus – Causation D used girlfriend as a But for test
shield in a hostage shoot
out with police, D liable
for her death as but for his
actions the police
wouldn’t have fired.
R V Hughes (1996) Actus Reus - Causation D collided with intoxicated But for test
driver whilst driving
faultlessly but without
insurance or licence, not
liable for death due to but
for test
Kimsey (1996) Actus Reus – Causation D into high-speed car Established de minimus
chase, lost control, other test – D’s actions must be
driver killed the substantial cause and
not a slight or trifling link
to the harm. D convicted
as her driving was the
, substantial cause
Marchant v Muntz (2004) Actus Reus – Causation Motorcyclist impaled De minimis test
himself on a grab attached
to a loading vehicle while
driving at 80mph, loading
vehicle driver not liable as
the grab wasn’t the
substantive cause, D’s
speed was
R v Cheshire (1991) Actus Reus – Causation D shot victim who has a Third party intervention
complication as a result of can break the chain of
hospital treatment, D causation, but not in this
liable as his actions case
contributed more than
medical negligence
R v Smith (1959) Actus Reus – Causation D stabbed a fellow soldier, Third party intervention
victim dropped twice on can break the chain of
route to medics, causation, but not in this
misdiagnosed and then case
died, D convicted as his
actions more substantial
R v Jordan (1956) Actus Reus - Causation Victim stabbed, hospital Third party intervention
mistake when close to can break the chain of
being discharged meant causation
D’s murder conviction was
quashed
Blaue (1975) Actus Reus – Causation V was Jehovah’s witness D could not use ‘victim’s
and refused blood own condition’ to avoid
transfusion to save their liability as using the thin
life, died skull rule the victim is
taken as found.
Roberts (1971) Actus Reus – Causation V jumped from car to Daftness test - could not
avoid sexual assault use ‘victim’s own actions’
to avoid liability as V’s
actions were proportional
to the threat of harm.
R v Williams and Davis Actus Reus – Causation Hitchhiker jumped from Daftness test - D’s could
(1997) car to avoid theft. use ‘victim’s own actions’
to avoid liability as V’s
actions were not
proportional to the threat
of harm.
R v Cato (1976) Actus Reus – Causation D liable when he supplied Causation in drugs cases
and injected drugs into V
who then died
R v Dalby (1982) Actus Reus – Causation D’s manslaughter Causation in drugs cases
conviction quashed as he
only supplied drugs and V
self-injected
R v Kennedy (1999) Actus Reus – Causation D held liable for supplying Causation in drugs cases
and filling syringe to hand
to V who then self-
injected
R v Rogers (2003) Actus Reus – Causation D liable for supplying and Causation in drugs cases
tying torniquet for V
DPP v Santana-Bermudez Actus Reus – Omissions D did not disclose a needle Failing to act in a
,(2003) in his pocket when asked dangerous situation
in a police search, charged created by oneself can
with assault when officer result in liability
injured
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland Actus Reus – Omissions Victim of the Hillsborough Omitting treatment in
(1993) disaster was left in a medical practise does not
persistent vegetative always result in liability –
state, doctors asked to duty of doctors
stop treatment and
artificially feeding him
after 3 years as there was
no chance of recovery
Donoghue v Stevenson Actus Reus – Omissions Woman became ill after Established a general duty
(1932) partially consuming ginger of care
beer which had a
decomposing snail in it
R v Winters (2010) Actus Reus – Omissions D’s stored fireworks Example of a criminal duty
without a licence, fire at of a care
the farm caused an
explosion and 2 deaths.
Convicted as they had
breached duty of care to
the public by storing
fireworks in a way which
threatened mass
explosion
R v Gibbins and Proctor Actus Reus – Omissions D’s failed to feed the Omitting to act when you
(1918) man’s daughter from a assumed a responsibility
previous marriage, she of care for them can result
died of malnutrition in liability
R v Stone and Dobinson Actus Reus – Omissions D’s relative died whilst Omitting to act when you
(1977) under their care due to have assumed care for
eating disorder someone can result in
liability
R v Pitwood (1902) Actus Reus – Omissions D was responsible for Failing to perform a role-
manning a level crossing, based duty can lead to
he left the crossing liability
unmanned with the
barrier up, a train and a
horse and cart collided
killing the driver
R v Dytham (1979) Actus Reus – Omissions D a police officer stood by Failing to act in a public
and watched a bouncer office can lead to liability
beat a man to death
R v Naughton (2001) Actus Reus – Omissions D a police officer did Failing to act in a public
nothing when his friend office can lead to liability
attacked a restaurant
owner
R v Miller (1983) Actus Reus – Omissions D’s lit cigarette set a Failing to act in a
mattress on fire in a house dangerous situation
when he fell asleep, even created by oneself can
when he awoke, he failed result in liability
to put the fire out or warn
others
R v Mohan Mens Rea - Intention D drove car quickly when ‘Attempted’ offence but D
police ordered him to intended the outcome
, stop, charged with
attempted ABH as almost
hit policeman
Moloney (1985) Mens Rea - Intention D and stepfather drinking, Conviction successfully
competition to load gun appealed as no intention
quickest, D shot step- to kill his stepfather.
father who died Foresight of consequences
with death being the
naturally consequence of
shooting someone could
not be considered
intention
R v Hancock and Mens Rea - Intention D threw concrete block On appeal quashed and
Shankland (1985) from bridge onto taxi changed to manslaughter.
transporting ‘scabs’ to Wording changed from
work, driver killed, ‘natural, to ‘natural and
convicted of murder probable’
R v Nedrick (1986) Mens Rea - Intention D poured paraffin threw Virtual certainty test
his intended victim’s established – was the
house and set it on fire, a outcome virtually certain
child died and did D know this?
Murder conviction
quashed to manslaughter
R v Woolin (1998) Mens Rea - Intention D threw baby towards Virtual certainty test
pram but hit a wall, died proved harm to the baby
was virtually certain so
intention inferred for
murder conviction
R v Matthews and Alleyne Mens Rea - Intention D’s threw victim who they Murder conviction upheld
(2003) knew couldn’t swim into a as it was virtually certain V
river would die
R v Cunningham (1957) Mens Rea – Recklessness D opened a gas meter in Conviction quashed as D
an empty property to steal hadn’t realised the risk,
the money inside, caused established subjective
a gas leak and the woman recklessness
next door to die
Caldwell (1981) Mens Rea – Recklessness D set fire to a hotel when D claimed to not have
he had a grievance against realised the harm it could
the owner, minimal have caused to people
damage but arson inside but conviction
conviction upheld upheld as the reasonable
person would have
realised this – abolished
objective recklessness
R v G and Another Mens Rea – Recklessness 11- and 12-year-old set Unfair to use objective
papers on fire and put recklessness on the youths
them in a bin presuming as they could not be
they would extinguish, expected to understand
they didn’t and £1million the risk in the same way
damage was caused an adult would – criminal
damage convictions
dropped
R v Latimer Mens Rea – Transferred D whipped his belt aiming Transferred malice can be
Malice to hit a man but instead mens rea for crimes of the
injured another woman same kind when injury is
caused
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller milliejolliffe38. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.60. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
