Judgments
Key cases criminal law semester 1
- Module
- Criminal Law (LAW107)
- Institution
- The University Of Liverpool (UoL)
Key cases for semester 1 criminal law
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
HomicideR v. Gibbins and Proctor-parents have a duty of care for their child
R v. Pittwood-D forgot to shut the gate and V wandered on the train tracks. GNM
R v. Adamako-Doctors owe a duty to their patients
R v. Stone and Dobinson-you can put yourself in a position to give a duty of care
R v. Shephard-once the child is over 18, there is no duty of care
Lewin v CPS-friends do not owe each other a duty of care
R v. Evans-siblings no duty of care
R v. Miller-creation of a dangerous situation
Fagan v MPC-continuous act
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland-mixed up act and omission so doctors wouldn’t be liable for
murder
R v. Dyson-accelerating death is still a cause of death
R v. White-must accelerate death
R v. Cato-death must be substantially contributed to by D (more than de minimis)
R v. Kimsey-even a slight contribution is enough
R v. Dalloway-did not complete the ‘but for’ test as the kid would have died even if he was
riding the horse safely
R v. Blaue-take your victim how you found them
R v. Gowans-natural events can remove D’s liability
R v. Thabo Meli-continuing act
Re: A (A Minor)-impeded ability to decide due to having anorexia. Also, she is a child so the
court can overrule
R v. Malcharek and Steel-switching off life support is not murder if the brain stem is dead
R v. Beckford-person may use reasonable force to defend themselves or another
R v. Vickers-GBH leading to death is murder-malice aforethought
R v. Cunningham-maliciousness-intention to do the harm or recklessness
R v. Rahman-despite not being able to identify which stab wound killed V, it doesn’t matter
as it was intended and there was a contribution
R v. Moloney-no oblique intent
R v. Woollin-virtual certainty
R v. Lamb-no unlawful act if there is no virtual certainty
Andrews v. DPP-normal v reckless negligence for GNM
R v. Lowe-must be an unlawful act for homicide
R v. Carey-D’s acts must directly cause V’s death
R v. Church-argued that criminal negligence has to be done and not recklessness for
constructive
R v. JF-dangerous act was objective, mens rea must be the unlawful act
R v Dawson-a reasonable person would have realised that an imitation gun is not deadly
R. Watson-there must be an initial unlawful act
R v. JM and SM-no foresight needed for unlawful act manslaughter
AG Ref (No. 3 of 1994)-until it is born, a foetus is not a life that can be murdered
R v. Mitchell (1983)-unlawful act manslaughter does not need to be aimed at anyone
Medical Professionals
, R v. Adomako- four stages, duty of care must be breached to cause death so negligent there
should be criminal proceedings
R v. Misra-Adamako does not infringe convention rights and both doctors were convicted of
GNM
R v. Rose-D must foresee the risk
R (Rowley) v DPP-subjective recklessness is not necessary
R v. Lidar-purposeful recklessness is still reckless
R v. Brennan [2015]-diminished responsibility has a closer medical and legal overlap
Defences
R v. Byrne-abnormality of the mind covers a wide spectrum of mental problems
R v. Tandy-still murder as she had the control to stop drinking
R v. Dowds-voluntary acute intoxication does not create diminished responsibility
R v. Hobson-pre-battered woman syndrome. Provocation
R v. Lloyd-substantial diminished impairment is needed
R v. Ramchurn-whilst sexual problems are not one for diminished responsibility alone, other
factors make it a valid part for diminished responsibility
R v. Golds-must be more than substantial and the judge may refuse letting that be admitted
R v. Squelch-when there is voluntary intoxication and mental illness, diminished
responsibility can be used
R v. Dietschmann-abnormality of the mind due to drinking reduced his sentence to
manslaughter
R v. Wood-giving in to drinking is not an involuntary act but the alcohol leads to diminished
responsibility
R v. Stewart-if intoxication is so extreme, prosecution may not be able to establish the mens
rea
R v. Sutcliffe-Yorkshire ripper had a mental illness but was tried for murder
R v. Bruzas-provocation is only a defence for murder
R v. Richens-misdirection does not require a loss of control
R v. Cocker-complete loss of control is not needed
R v. Jewell-revenge removes all defences
R v. Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer-sex is not a qualifying trigger but there are the fear and
anger ones
R v. Thornton (No. 2)-battered woman syndrome. Not provocation but loss of control
R v. Ahluwalia [1992]-provocation would have to be ‘sudden and temporary loss of control’
R v. Clinton-sexual infidelity is not a qualifying trigger
R v. Doughty-hours of continuous baby crying can constitute provocation
R v. Morhall-glue sniffing was a characteristic that needed to be included in provocation
R v. Mohammed-diminished responsibility and mental instability can lead to a greater
sentence
R v. Zebedee-mental state and personality disorder were not enough to meet the
requirements for diminished responsibility
R v. Camplin-would a reasonable man be provoked under the same circumstances (age and
sex)?
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 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 joycetao. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £10.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
77254 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now