Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate

Criminal Law

CASE FACTS PRINCIPLE

Actus Reus
Omissions
R v Stone and Dobinson Stone's sister dies An incompetent effort is
unlikely to discharge a duty to
act.
R v Gibbins and Proctor Child dues due to negligence Murder can be committed by
omission.
R v Pittwood Railway gatekeeper forgets to Duty arising from contract.
close the door.
R v Miller Lights a fire and goes to sleep Duty of care exists as the initial
act was not rectified.
Automatism
R v Quick Hypoglycaemia(low sugar) Not insane automatism since a
because of insulin overdose. person cannot be detained in a
mental institution for merely
having a low blood sugar.
RvT Stabs victim but had post Sane automatism – since its
traumatic stress disorder effects are similar to a blow on
the head.
R v Bailey Voluntary act of forgetting to No defense.
take insulin dose.
Causation
R v Blaue Jehovah's Witness Victim must be taken as found
R v White D puts cyanide in his mother's Factual Causation: But for test.
drink. She dies anyway of heart Not guilty since no legal
failure. causation.
R v Smith Soldier stabbed and dropped Legal Causation: D will be
convicted until the wound is
not operational
R v Pagett Girl shot by police officers when D liable as he orchestrated the
being used as a human shield attack. Chain of causation
breaks in cases of extremely
unforeseeable circumstances.
R v Cheshire V shot by D but survives. Dies 2 Chain of causation not broken since
months later due to breathing the act of the hospital wasn't in itself
so potent and independent that the D
difficulties. act was regarded as insignificant.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Hypoglycaemia – Sane Automatism
Hyperglycaemia – Insane Automatism

Distinction between the two as hypo is not a disease but a mere overdose while hyper needs to be
controlled, as it is a disease.

Bailey: Self induced automatism is not a defence for basic intent crimes unless the induction was
through medication.

Omissions: Only there when a duty to act exists and when the offence can be committed through an
omission. To discharge duty, one needs to have acted reasonably.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate

Mens Rea
Intention
R v Nedrick D pours parrafin and kills child Virtual Certainty required in
committing a crime. Jury
directed not 'to infer' intention
if the outcome is virtually
certain.
R v Woolin Throws child in anger and kills Jury directed not 'to find'
him intention if the outcome is
virtually certain.
Recklessness
R v Cunningham Gas Meter torn off wall Subjective Test. Foreseeability
required.

Caldwell v MPC Fire set to hotel Objective Test

RvG 2 boys burnt a market
Transferred Malice
Haystead v Chief constable of D hits mother who drops child
Derbyshire
R v Latimer Two men fighting and guy
misses and hits V.
Negligence
R v Adomako D, an anaesthetist was found
guilty of gross negligence.
Subjective test reinstated.
Recklessness is when a person
takes an unjustifiable risk and
that the person is aware of it.
D guilty of assaulting child.
Guilty – actus reus and mens
rea coincide.
No forseeability required. Even
if one commits a school boy
error, it is one's fault since one
should have not let it happen.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate

Non Fatal Offences

Assault
R v Venna D either intended or was
reckless as to causing the victim
to apprehend the application of
unlawful violence.
Smith v Chief superintedent of D staring through the window Violence must be apprehended
woking police station of V who is wearing nothing but immediately
a nightie
Battery
R v Martin People trample each other after Application of force need not to
D puts an iron bar on the be direct.
theatre exit.
Fagan v MPC D accidentally drove car on to Battery not merely by omission.
policeman's foot Violent Act.
Consent
R v Dica + Brown V cannot consent to harm
exceeding ABH.
R v Wiliams D raped V by getting the Fraud does not amount to
consent fraudulently consent
R v Clarence D has sex with his wife even Not guilty since there was no
though he has a venereal deception as to the nature of
disease and knows about it. the act. The disease was a
collateral detail.
R v Tabassum D Examined breasts for medical There was consent to the act
purposes. but not to the quality.
R v Feston Konzani D had intercourse with three Consent to unprotected sex is
women even though he had not the same thing as consent
HIV to the risk of contracting the
infection.
R v Wilson Carving of name on wife's ass. Not guilty of wounding because
of consent. Minors still not
allowed since tattooing is not
allowed.

Assault – Actus Reus: Apprehension of immediate unlawful force.

Mens Rea: Intention or subjective recklessness
Battery – Actus Reus: Infliction of unlawful force
Mens Rea: Intention or subjective recklessness
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Section 47 of OAPA
R v Chanfook V held for questioning and was
threatened. Jumps out of
window
R v Savage Beer glass thrown
Section 20 of OAPA
JJC v Eisenhower Pellet gun fired at V.
Janjua and Chaudhary A 5 ½ inch blade used.
R v Mowatt D attacked a police officer
R v Burstow Silent phone calls
Section 18 of OAPA
R v Belfon D slashes V with a razor
R v Morrison D drags policewoman while
resisting arrest.
S 47 – Actus Reus and Mens Rea same as Assault/Battery. ABH is an extra actus reus element.
S 20 – Actus Reus: Wounding or causing GBH.
Mens Rea: Risk of causing some harm.
S 18 – Actus Reus: Wounding or GBH
Mens Rea: Intention when causing wounding or GBH but recklessness when resisting arrest
and causing GBH or wounding.
Feelings of fear and panic are
emotions rather than injuries,
no assault no crime.
Mens rea for ABH is battery. The
occasioning of ABH is an
additional actus reus element.
Both layer of skin need to break
to prove wounding.
Jury directed not to look for
'really' serious harm when
considering what is GBH.
Mens rea requirement is the
forseeability of 'some harm', not
serious harm.
A person can inflict GBH even
though no physical violence is
applied directly or indirectly.
Means rea requirement of s18 is
of Intention. Recklessness is
insufficient.
D must have foreseen the risk of
wounding or GBH.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate

Murder
R v Moloney Intention to kill or cause GBH
suffices for murder.
Involuntary Manslaughter
Unlawful and dangerous act
R v Arobieke Actus reus of base crime needs
to be fulfilled.
R v Lamb Points gun at friend. Not guilty since the act was not
unlawful as no psychic assault
was caused.
R v Church Struck and then threw victim in A dangerous act is which is
lake. understood to have some harm
by a sober reasonable person.
R v Dawson V, a sixty year old, dies of a heart D must be aware of the
attack after being robbed. condition. Not a take your
victim as your find him situation
as no physical element present.
Gross Negligence
R v Willoughby Judge may direct jury but it is
still for them to decide if the
duty exists or not.
R v Watts Duty can be breached by
omission.
R v Evans One sister gets heroin and the Where a person has contributed
other dies of overdose. to a state of affairs that has
become life threatening, a
consequent duty exists.
R v Ruffel D leaves V out in the cold when Duty of care exists.
he is unwell.
R v Misra Doctors who were keeping a Following Adomako, if the D's
check on V failed to diagnose an conduct falls below the
infection. standard to be expected of a
reasonable man of the same
profession, he is to be
convicted. Death needs to be
caused.
R v Gowans and Hillman Infection in the hospital. Chain of causation not broken
and D liable for causing death.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Involuntary Manslaughter and the administration of drugs
R v Kennedy no 2 Prepares syringe for V who D will not be convicted of
injects it himself. manslaughter if the person whom
the drug was supplied to freely
and voluntarily self-administered
it. The killing must stem from the
unlawful act.
R v Cato D injects V Guilty of Manslaughter. Chain of
causation not broken. But for
test will not apply since there is
no intention to cause death.
Criticism of judgement that act
needs to be unlawful.
Diminished responsibility
RvR Impairment of mind need not
be total.
R v Dietschmann D who is suffering from mental need not show that he would've
illness kills V while drunk. killed even if he was not drunk

Murder – Actus Reus: Killing of a person (Brain stem is dead. No death in circumstances of persistent
vegetative state)
Mens Rea: Intention to kill or cause GBH.

Unlawful Act Manslaughter – The Actus Reus and Mens Rea of base crime needs to be fulfilled and
base defences need to be dealt with before approaching manslaughter. If the base crime is a basic
intent crime, intoxication will not work (R v Lipman).

Gross Negligent Manslaughter: There needs to be a duty of care, which was breached.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Theft
Appropriation
R v Morris Switched labels on goods Appropriation is a neutral
concept.
R v Lawrence Taxi driver takes more money Consent is not necessary.
R v Gomez Bad cheques Assuming any right of the
owner amounts to
appropriation.
R v Hinks D receives gift from retarded Assumed rights since the V
man. could not have given the gift on
his own mental capacity.
Consent irrelevant as D was
dishonest.
Belonging to Another
R v Turner D steals his own car from Garage had a equitable interest
workshop. or a 'lien' in the car. Scope
extended a lot since this should
have been a civil claim.
Dishonesty
R v Ghosh Two tier test. 1) Jury must see
that the act done was dishonest
in the eyes of a reasonable man.
2) then whether the D himself
realised that what he was doing
was dishonest by those
standards.
Intention to Permanently Deprive
R v Fernandes Intention may be there if a
person is possession of
another's property and
dishonestly uses it, risking its
loss.
R v Lavender D takes away doors of council The meaning of the words 'to
house. dispose of' need not to be taken
literally.
R v Lloyd D takes films for copying but Not guilty since he returned
then returned them. them in all goodness or virtue.

Theft – Actus Reus: Appropriating property belonging to another

Mens Rea: Dishonestly with the intention to permanently deprive.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Robbery
Corcoran v Anderton D stole V's handbag but
dropped it soon after.
R v Dawson and James V nudged and while trying to
keep balance, D stole wallet.
R v Hale First steals then gags V.
R v Skivington Stole money believing that it
was his
R v Smith, Plummer and Haines D robs V of heroin.
Burglary
Stevens v Gourley
R v Ryan D gets stuck in window.
R v Walkington D enters another part of the
shop that had been demarcated
as out bounds.
R v Laing D stayed in a store after it had
closed to the public.
Jones and Smith D steals from father's house.
R v Collins
Offence of robbery complete
the moment he applied force
and ran away.
Minimal amount of force
needed to be convicted.
Appropriation is a continuing
act and hence force was used
during the theft.
Conviction quashed since mens
rea was not present.
It is possible to steal something
illegal as the exceptions in s4 of
theft act did not extend to
things that are unlawful.
The building needs to be
permanent.
Held to be guilty as any part of
the body entering the building
completes the offence.
D entered a part of a building
without permission so was a
trespasser.
A defendant cannot become a
trespasser in a building for the
purposes of burglary, where he
has previously entered that
building as a lawful visitor.
D will be convicted of burglary
if he trespassed at the time of
entering. Here, the D had his
father's permission to enter but
didn't have the permission to
take the TVs away so he was
guilty of burglary.
D must have either intended to
trespass or was reckless.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
R v Stones Intention to not use a weapon
holds nothing for aggravated
burglary.

Robbery – Actus Reus: Force + Theft

Mens Rea: Intention to use force + mens rea of theft.

Burglary 9(1)(a) – Actus Reus: To trespass in a building

Mens Rea: Intention to steal, cause GBH or criminal damage. (Specific intent crime)

Burglary 9(1)(b) – Actus Reus: Trespass in a building + theft or attempted theft or infliction or
attempted GBH.
Mens Rea: that of ulterior offence.

Aggravated Burglary: Extra actus reus element of firearm/weapon/expolsive.

Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate

Criminal Damage
Samuels v Stubbs Policeman's cap twisted. Courts held that it is difficult to
lay down a general rule so one
must be guided to the
circumstances as to determine
what is damage to property.
Hardman v chief constable of Drawings on pavement that Damage where the V has to
Avon had to be removed by high incur some expense to fix it.
pressure water jets.
Appleyard D, a managing director, sets fire Will not be liable for damage if
to his company. the property does not belong to
another.
RvG Fire set to newspapers by 2 Subjective recklessness. D must
boys. appreciate the risk.
R v Cooper Risk of danger to life in
aggravated criminal damage
needs to be obvious and
significant to the D.
R v Wenton D throws a brick in to Vs Not guilty of criminal damage
window. Then throws a petrol as of s1(2) since the threat to life
canister a piece of paper. Paper had to emerge from the
did not ignite. damage to property. Projection
of brick and throwing of petrol
to separate acts.

Criminal Damage – Actus Reus: Destroying or damaging property belonging to another

Mens Rea: Intention or recklessness (basic intent so no defence of intoxication)

Aggravated Criminal Damage - Actus Reus: Destroying or damaging property

Mens Rea: Intention or recklessness as to causing damage + D was
aware of risk of endangering life.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Attempt
R v Gullefer Jumps on the race track and
waves his arms.
R v Jones Sawn off shotgun pointed at ex
mistress's new lover.
R v Campbell D wanted to rob but decided
not to but was caught when
going back to his car.
R v MD Various counts of cruelty.
R v Husseyn Ds opened the door of a parked
van, intending to steal.
R v Shivpuri Imported a package he though
was heroin.
Attempt – Actus Reus: More than merely preparatory.
Mens Rea: D must intend the act of the offence and must also intend to cause the
consequences.
Not deemed to be more than
merely preparatory since there
were still a lot factors to
consider.
D had sawn off the shotgun,
loaded it and got into the V's
car so more than merely
preparatory.
Walking to the location was
deemed to be merely
preparatory.
D did an act that killed V
without the purpose of killing
but where death had been a
virtual certainty and the D
appreciated that such was the
case, D is guilty.
Intention to kill required for
attempt to murder.
Conditional intent doesn't
mean jack. If you have the
intent of stealing, regardless if
you come across something of
value or not, you are guilty.
An impossible attempt is
nonetheless an attempt.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate

Parties to Crime
Attorney General's To procure means to produce
Reference(No.1 of 1975) by endeavour.
R v Clarkson D stood there watching V get There needs to be a subjective
raped. intention to encourage, assist or
procure.
R v Bryce D transported X with his gun to An intention to hinder will
the location of M, whom X later negate the intention but since
killed. bryce had intentionally put X in
a position, he had intentionally
assisted him.
R v Willett D charged of murder along with Appeal held since accomplice is
his brother(who was driving the not merely guilty on the basis
car) after his brother ran over V. that he remained in the car.
Needs to aid abet counsel or
procure.

R v Bainbridge ( followed in D had supplied X with oxygen At the time of assistance, D

Maxwell v Northern Island) cutting equipment.
Powell and Daniels 3 people go to the house of a
drug dealer and one of them
kills the dealer.
Davies v DPP Boys get in to gangfight with
the possibility of somebody
getting killed but D has a knife
which nobody foresaw and uses
it to kill.
R v English Joint enterprise wanted to
cause injury to V by wooden
posts but D produced a knife.
R v Gnango Two people are shooting at
each other and one accidentally forseeability of killing is not
kills a pedestrian. charged of enough and there should be a
murder under joint enterprise.
should have foresaw the
commission of the offence.
Unnecessary to know the
particular details.
If in a joint enterprise, the D
might kill with intent and the
others forsee this, everybody is
liable.
Since knife was not within
contemplation, no liability for
murder.
Fundamentally different act so
no conviction. If the weapons
would've been of the same
lethal propensity, then
would've been found guilty.
Appeal Allowed since
shared outcome.
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate

Defences
Insanity
R v Sullivan Epileptic seizure to D who kicks Disease of the mind needs to be
V in the head. caused by internal factors. Not
important if permanent or not.
There must be an impairment of
mental faculties.
R v Clarke D stole items from a A momentary lapse of
supermarket whilst suffering concentration is different from
from depression. a defect in reason.
R v Windle Killed his wife by giving her D must not know that what he
aspirins. was doing was wrong.
Intoxication
R v Majewski D gets voluntarily drunk and Crimes of basic intent(that can
hits various people. be committed recklessly) are
not given the defence of
intoxication.
R v Kingston D's drink is laced and he D's claim that he had been
sexually assaults V. involuntarily been intoxicated
was rejected since he had mens
rea before the intoxication.
R v Hardie Takes valium and sets house on Valium's effect on D was weird
fire. so D is free.
Self Defence
William(gladstone) D hit another guy who was Honest belief that force is
arresting a criminal. necessary.
R v Owino and R v Palmer Force used must be reasonable.
Duress
R v Howe D must choose his own life in
order to save V's.
Valderrama-Vega D under three threats. The threat needs to be
operational.
R v Heath D owed drug dealer money and D must not put himself in a
was threatened with serious position where he is likely to be
violence. threatened.
R v Graham Was the D actually compelled to
do the crime and would a
reasonable man of the same
age and sex do the same thing?
Aizaz Ahsan – LLB Intermediate
Intoxication – level of intoxication should be that D lacked Mens Rea.

Insanity - Disease of mind, defect of reason and D did not know the nature and quality of his act OR
D did not know what he was doing was wrong.

Duress – Only available when the threat is of GBH or death.

Self Defence – Can use statutory or common law defence.

Burden of Proof

Sane Automatism: D has to include evidence

Insane Automatism: Burden on whoever raises it
Loss of Control: D bears the burden
Diminished Responsibility: D bears the burden unless prosecution raises it against insanity
Intoxication: D has to provide evidence
Self Defence: D bears the burden
Insanity: D bears the burden
Duress: Prosecution bears the burden