Cases Flashcards Preview

Scots Criminal Law > Cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Cases Deck (46)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Hogg v McPherson 1928

A

No Voluntary Act
- Driver of horse and carriage was accused of knocking over a lamp
- It turned out the wind had caused the carriage to be knocked over and resulted in damage to the lampost
HELD - Driver not liable as there must be a voluntary act before there is liability

2
Q

R v White 1910

A

No Causal Link
- Defendant put poison cyanide in to his mother’s drink with the intention to kill her
- The victim died of a heart attack before the posion could take effect.
HELD - not guilty of murder as he had not caused the death.

3
Q

HM Advocate v Kerr &; Others 1871

A

No liability for omissions
- Mr Donald did not take part in a rape but was subsequently charged for ‘not acting’
- The question put before the court was whether he had a duty to stop the rape
HELD - It was morally wrong but Donald was under no legal obligation to act.
Illustrates that you are only liable for what you do, not what others do.

4
Q

Quinn v Lees 1994

A

A Joke: Motive
- Accused was charged with assault after setting his dog on three children
- Accused gave evidence that he called the dog to attak as ‘a joke’
HELD - sufficient evidence that he intended the dog to attack.
Even if it was a joke that was merely the motive and did not affect the mens rea.

5
Q

Paton v HM Advocate 1936

A

Recklessness

- Gross indifference to the consequences of his actions

6
Q

Thabo Meli v R (1954)

A

Conduct treated as a continuous act
- Four men beat a victim over the head
- Of the belief that they had killed the victim they proceeded to throw him from a cliff
- Medical evidence proved that the victim had not died from the beating, but from exposure after being thrown from the cliff.
- They appealed their convictions on the grounds that the Actus Reus and Mens Rea did not coincide
- The argument being that although they fulfilled the actus reus, they did not fulfil the mens rea at the time the threw the victim from the cliff
HELD - Convictions were upheld on the grounds that the act of beating the victim and then throwing him from a cliff was a continuing act.

7
Q

Roberts v Hamilton 1989

A

Transferred Intent
- Accused aimed a blow at soemone and ended up hitting her own boyfriend
- There was no intention to hit him
HELD - There was the intention to injure someone which meant that intention transferred, guilty of assault.

8
Q

HM Advocate v Robertson & Donoghue (1945)

A

(causation)Take the victim as you find them
- Two accused struggked with an eldery shop owner
- The victim suffered a heart attack and died
- It was discovered that the victim had a weak heart and the attack contributed to his heart failure.
HELD - Although one cannot be expected to know of a persons physical condition you are assumed to know as per the think skull rule.

9
Q

McDonald v HM Advocate 2007

A

(causation)Victim’s contribution
- Victim seriously assaulted and locked in third floor flat
- Victim proceeded to try and escape by climbing oit of the window, part of which broke when he stood on it
The victim fell and later died as a result of the fall
- The two men who committed the origainl assault were convicted of culpable homicide
HELD - that the unlawful imprisonment and assault were a direct cause of the victim’s death.

10
Q

HM Advocate v Fraser & Rollins 1920

A

Each liable for the ultimate actus reus
- A woman would lure victims into park so her two associates could rob them
- On this occasion the victim is killed
- it is forseeable that robbery may lead to death
HELD - all parties liable under ‘art and part liability’ are responsible where there is prior agreement.

11
Q

Gallacher v HM Advocate 1951

A

(art and part)Spontaneous coming together
- A circus came to Hamilton
- There was a feud between the people of Hamilton and the circus people
- One Hamilton individual proceeded to attack a person whom he believed was part of the circus
- Many people witnessed and decided to join in the attack
- The victim died
HELD - Although there was no prior plan between individuals there was a spontaneous coming together for criminal purpose and thus art and part liable for murder.

12
Q

Boyne v HM Advocate

A

(art and part)Step outside the common plan
- Several individuals were involved in a robbery
- A victim died as a result of being stabbed by one of the accused
- If others knew he possessed the knife before the robbery they would have been liable for murder
HELD - lack of knowledge as to the knife meant only the assailant who possessed the knife was charged with murder as he strayed outside the common plan.

13
Q

HM Advocate v Camerons (1911)

A

(Attempt) preparation to perpetration
- A husband and wife claim they have been robbed
- They notified both the police and their insurance company
- They had not actually filled out the claim form for the insurance provider
- Therefore, they the did not satisfy ‘the last act’ test nor did they satisfy the ‘beyond recall’ test as they could still repent
HELD - became a question of degree for the jury and they were both convicted

14
Q

Docherty v Brown 1996

A

Impossible Attempts
- Accused was charged with attempting to possess a controlled substance with the intent to supply
- It emerged that the ‘drugs’ purchased by the accused were not drugs at all
HELD - he was convicted of attempting to commit a crime as he still possessed the necessary mens rea.

15
Q

West v HM Advocate 1997

A

(Conspiracy) Loitering suspiciously with weapons
- Two accused sat outside a bank with blade and an open razor
- They were charged with conspiracy to assault and rob
HELD - although there was no actual ‘attempt’ two people had acted together in perpetration of a crime which has not yet been attempted

16
Q

Baxter v HM Advocate 1997

A

(Incitement) It is enough that the accused is serious
- A dispute arose between tenants of plan for property
- One inhabitant was preventing the refurbishments from taking place
- A tenant discussed with an employee how much it would cost to have the tenant killed
- The tenant was killed despite there being no explicit instructions to have him killed
HELD - Incitement could be charged where the accused was serious in inviting another to commit a crime

17
Q

Drury v HM Advocate 2001

A

“wicked intent”

  • Drury murdered his ex-wife with a claw hammer upon discovering she had slept with another man
  • The case brought about a new definition for murder which was a controversial one
  • Lord Roger stated that there must be ‘wicked intent’ to kill or ‘wicked recklessness’
  • The case accepted that there was provocation in the form of sexual infedelity
  • The judge directed the jury that for the defence of provocation to be successful they had to determine (1) did he snap and (2) would the ordinary man have responded in the same way when discovering sexual infedelity
18
Q

HM Advocate v Purcell 2008

A

“wicked recklessnes”
- Young child was killed by Purcell who was driving extremely dangerously
- The crown sought a charge of murder
- It was the view of the court that there must have been some from of intention to kill to charge murder
- The crown argued that the “callous disregard for public safety” should amount to murder
HELD - Purcell’s actions were not so intended and he was charged with the lesser crime of culpable homicide.

19
Q

Petto v HM Advocate 2011

A

(murder)
- The court distinguished(materially different) the case of Purcell
- Petto set fire to a tenemant which then caused an explosion and killed a person in another flat
- He plead guilty to murder
- He then tried to withdraw his plea and have it reduced to culpable homicide
- A five bench decision found him guilty of murder
HELD - deliberately setting fire to the first floor flat meant it was inevitable someone may be injured even if this consequence is not desired, if you know it may happen then you intend it to happen.

20
Q

Tomney v HM Advocate [2012]

A

(Culpable Homicide)

  • accused, victim and third pary were in a living room with a gun and ammunition
  • They had ingested large amounts of cannabis and alcohol
  • The accused picked up the gun and exerted some form of pressure on the trigger causing the gun to discharge and kill the victim
  • Although the gun was not aimed at the victim it was held to be reckless and culpable rather than an accident
21
Q

Transco PLC v HM Advocate (No1)

A

(corporate homicide) Charge of culpable homicide against a company
- Public gas transporter resonsible fr explosion that killed four people
- The trial judge described Transo as having “shown a complete and utter disregard to the public”
- Court ruled it was possible to charge company with culpable homicide but only if the individuals could be identified and being a ‘direct mind’ in the company
HELD - Could not establish individuals which rendered culpable homicide charges irrelevant and were subsequently dismissed

22
Q

John Roy 1839

A

(assault) No intent to cause injury
- Accused intentioanlly threw a brick through a window causing it to smash
- Unintentionally the accused caused injury to a girl who was at the other side of the window
HELD - although the girl was injured the accused was not guilty of assault as his intention was not to cause injury

23
Q

Smart v HM Advocate 1975

A

(assault) Consent is no defence
- Smart was charged with assault
- He claimed he was not guilty of assault as the victim had agreed to a ‘square go’
HELD - just because the victim consented does not make the criminal act justified and thus Smart was found guilty of assault.

24
Q

R v Brown [1994]

A

(assault) Sado-Masochism
- Group of men charged with assault through sado-masochistic activities
- Victims had consented to harm they received and never complained to the police
HELD - although victims consented to the violence and actually enjoyed it this was no defence
Those accused were convicted of assault

25
Q

Stewart v Nisbet 2013

A

(Assault) Error as to consent
- Accused was a police officer who wrapped sellotape around woman’s head
- The woman had consented, however her breathing was restricted
- Appeal court rejected mistaken belief in consent being a defence
HELD - even though complainer may have consented to what would make up an assault charge that is no defence
Accused convicted of assault

26
Q

HM Advocate v Harris 1993

A

(Reckless crime) Assault requires intent, but causing injury through reckless conduct is a crime
- Accused was charged with assault to severe injury after pushing woman on the body causing her to fall down a flight of stairs on to road where she was struck by a vehicle
HELD - 5 bench decision held that reckless conduct to the danger of the victim constituted a crime in Scotland and so too did reckless conduct which caused actual injury

27
Q

Black v Carmichael 1992

A

(theft) Temporary appropriation
- Accused wheel clamped a car and demanded a payment from the owner of the car of £45
- The accused was charged with theft
HELD - depriving the owner of his goods was enough to satisfy the definition of theft.

28
Q

Adcock v Archibald 1925

A

(fraud) Even a small practical result will suffice
- Accused was a coal miner
- In place was a system where miners mined as much coal as they could
- The accused swapped his identification pin with another, better performing miner, knowing that there was a bonus
- Although the accused never received a bonus he was credited elsewhere
HELD - the accused never received the bonus (practical result) , the fact he was still credited as a result of what he done satisfied a fraud had been committed,

29
Q

Byrne v HM Advocate (No.2) 2000

A

(fire-raising) leading case in wilful fire-raising

  • Accused set fire to piece of paper which caught fire to the property
  • Accused was charged with wilful fire-raising
  • Case set out two different crimes of wilful fire-raising and culpable and reckless fire-raising
30
Q

Smith v Donnelly 2001

A

(breach of the peace)

  • Accused was convicted of breach of the peace for lying on road way disrupting traffic
  • Accused appealed on the grounds that the definition of BOP was meaningless and incompatible with article 7 of the ECHR
  • She failed and was convicted
31
Q

Jones v Carnegie; Tallents v Gallacher 2004

A

(breach of the peace)
- Several accused appealed conviction of breach of the peace on the grounds that their rights under art 10 and art 11 of the ECHR had been breached
- Appeal court accepted that there had been an interference with these rights
- They did stipulate however that if the restrictions were prescribed by law to prevent disorder then that was allowed.
HELD - Convictions upheld

32
Q

Harris v HM Advocate 2010

A

(breach of the peace) Conduct must affect the public peace
- Harris made comments to two police officers about their families
- These conversations took place in private
HELD - conversations are to be in public and affect the community, in this case the accused was not guilty of BOP

33
Q

Moorov v HM Advocate 1930

A

(evidence)
“Moorov Doctrine”, underlying unity of the purpose; Similar in time, character and circumstance: provide mutual coroboration

34
Q

Sweet v Parsley [1970]

A

(strict liability) presumption against strict liability

  • Defendant was found guilty of allowing her property to be used for smoking cannabis
  • She had no knowledge that anyone had been smoking cannabis on her property
  • The court had held that as it took place on her property she was liable
  • On appeal the conviction was quashed by the House of Lords on the grounds that ‘knowledge’ of the use of the premises was essential to the offence
  • The court read in the word ‘knowingly’ in to the legislation
35
Q

Owens v HM Advocate 1946

A

(Error) Error must be genuine and reasonable
- The accused stabbed the victim as he believed the victim was attacking him with a knife
- The victim did not have a knife
- The accused wad convicted, on appeal however it was quashed
HELD - The victim’s plea of self defence was made out when he believed he was in imminent danger and he held that belief on reasonable grounds
- This even applicable where the belief was wrong.

36
Q

Brennan v HM Advocate 1977

A

voluntary intoxication is no defence
- Brennan was charged with murdering his father
- He had drank 25 pints of beer, a sherry and consumed LSD
- The accused and the victim had an argument and the accused proceeded to stab the victim repeatedly until dead
- Forensic scientist said the accused drank enough that would have killed the normal person
HELD - convicted of murder on the grounds that at some point the accused should have known he may lose control and at that point he became “wickedly reckless”

37
Q

Ross v HM Advocate 1991

A

defence of automatism recognised

  • Accused was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault
  • The accused claimed he had been spiked with LSD
  • The law was changed to recognise the defence of automatism
  • Certain criteria had to be met: (1) accused must be in a semi-conscious state (strong degree) (2) Only applies where what induces automatism is an external factor (3) must NOT be reasonably foreseeable
38
Q

Thomson v HM Advocate 1983

A

Hume’s 4 criteria
- Accused was charged with armed robbery
- He claimed that he was forced to drive the getaway vehicle
HELD - convicted by the jury
- On appeal the court stated Hume’s 4 criteria were still essential

39
Q

R v Dudley & Stephens (1884)

A

necessity is no defence to murder
- two accused and two other men cast adrift on a boat when their yacht sank
- After 20 days of no food two of the men decided to eat the cabin boy who had fallen ill
- a few days later they were rescued by a passing ship
- Prosecution sought a charge of murder
HELD - necessity cannot be used to save on life by killing another and they were both convicted of murder

40
Q

Moss v Howdle 1997

A

(defence) danger of death or great bodily harm
- Moss was charged with speeding at an excess of 100mph
- He argued he was speeding because the passenger screamed in pain
- The court said it was not necessity
- He had a third option of pulling over

41
Q

HM Advocate v Anderson 2006 (defence)

A

(defence) successful plea of necessity in murder case (unreported)
- Accused was charged with murder after deliberately running over someone
- The accused argued he only done so as there was a group of youth attempting to kill him and his son
- The accused claimed he ran over the victim out of necessity to flea the attackers
- The judge allowed the jury to decide
- The question being, was it justifiable to kill a single innocent person to save two innocents
HELD - not guilty of murder

42
Q

HM Advocate v Doherty 1954

A

(defence) must be no alternative, reasonable force only
- Doherty was charged with culpable homicide
- He argued he stabbed the victim due to the victim attacking him with a hammer
- For a successful plea of self defence there must be no other alternative, in this case the accused was with a group of friends as well as there being an escape route
HELD - convicted of culpable homicide

43
Q

Fenning v HM Advocate 1985

A

(defence) no cruel excess of violence
- Fenning was accused of murder
- He had struck the victim several times with a rifle and a stone
- Paterson (the victim) suspected that Fenning was having an affair with his wife and claimed he was going to “do him”
- The trial judge in directing the jury explained there must be “no cruel excess of violence”
HELD - jury convicted Fenning of murder due to the amount of times Fenning had stuck the victim

44
Q

Thomson v HM Advocate 1986

A

(defence) immediate retaliation
- partner in a business admitted to defrauding Thomson (accused)
- The partner proceeded to laugh at Thomson for ruining the business
- Thomson stabbed and killed his partner
- The accused plead provocation as a defence
HELD - there was no element of immediate retaliation to satisfy that there should allowed a plea of provocation.

45
Q

Gillon v HM Advocate 2007

A

different tests
- Accused was charged with murder
- He hit his neighbour repeatedly on the head with a spade
- The trial judge directed the jury to question whether the accused’s response was proportionate to the provocation
HELD - 5 bench decision stated Drury did not apply in this case , confirmed that provocation in violence remained unchanged

46
Q

Gallacher v HM Advocate 1951 (defence)

A

error as to the victim

  • No defence
  • the mens rea was not affected