Cases Flashcards Preview

Criminal Law and Evidence > Cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Cases Deck (50)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Case 1 : Hogg v. MacPherson 1928

A
  • Hogg was a van-man in charge of a large horse-drawn furniture van.
  • He was travelling along the road when a guest of wind capsized the van causing it to hit and damage a lamp-post.
  • No action of the appellant could have avoided the disaster.
  • No voluntary act.
2
Q

Case 2 : R. v. White 1910

A
  • Defendant our poison in mothers milk intending to kill her.
  • Mother took a few sips and went to sleep, never waking up.
  • Reports revealed age died from a heart attack, not the poison.
  • Defendant not liable for her death as his act wasn’t the cause of death.
  • He was liable for attempt.
  • No casual link.
3
Q

Case 3 : H.M. Advocate v. Kerr & and others 1871

A
  • The accused failed to report a gang rape he has witnessed but not taken part in.
  • Held that generally there is no liability for omissions unless it’s an exception.
4
Q

Case 4 : Quinn v. Lees 1994

A
  • Accused was charged with assault after setting his dog in three children.
  • Claimed he called the dog as a joke.
  • Held that there was sufficient evidence that he intended the dog to attack.
  • Even if it was a joke that was merely a motive and did not affect the men’s rea.
5
Q

Case 5 : Paton v. H.M. Advocate 1936

A
  • Man driving at a high speed hit and killed a pedestrian.
  • Although he never intended to kill anyone, his actions were reckless due to his indifference to the consequences of his actions.
6
Q

Case 6 : Thabo Meli v. R 1954

A
  • Four men beat victim over the head.
  • Thinking they had killed the victim, they threw him from a cliff.
  • Reports proved victim did not die from the beating, but from exposure after being throw off the cliff.
  • Appealed convictions on grounds that the actual reus and men’s rea did no coincide.
  • Argues that although they fulfilled actus reus, did not fulfil the men’s rea at the time they threw the victim from the cliff.
  • Convictions upheld on grounds that the act of beating the victim and throwing him from a cliff was a continuing act.
  • Conduct treated as a continuous act.
7
Q

Case 7 : Roberts v. Hamilton 1989

A
  • Accused aimed a blow at someone.
  • Ended up hiring her own boyfriend.
  • No intention to hit her boyfriend.
  • Held that there was the intention to injure someone which meant that the intention transferred.
  • Guilty of assault.
  • Transferred intent.
8
Q

Case 8 : H.M. Advocate v. Robertson and Donoghue 1945

A
  • Two accuses struggled with an elderly shop owner.
  • Victim suffered a heart attack and died.
  • Discovered that victim had a weak heart.
  • The attack contributed to his heart failure.
  • Held that although one can not be expected to know of a persons physical conditions you are assumed to as per the thin skull rule.
  • Take victim as you find him/her principle.
9
Q

Case 9 : McDonald v. H.M. Advocate 2007

A
  • Victim seriously assaulted and locked in third floor flat.
  • Victim tried to escape by climbing out window, part of which broke when he stood on it.
  • Victim fell and later died as a result of the fall.
  • Two men who committed the assault convicted for culpable homicide.
  • Held that the unlawful imprisonment and assault were a direct cause of the death.
  • Victims contribution.
10
Q

Case 10 : H.M. Advocate v. Fraser and Rollins 1920

A
  • Women would lure victims into parks
  • Her two associates would rob them.
  • On this occasion the victim is killed.
  • It’s foreseeable that robbery may lead to death.
  • Held that all parties liable under art and part liability are responsible where there is prior agreement.
  • Each liable for the ultimate actus reus.
11
Q

Case 11 : H.M Advocate v. Gallacher 1951

A
  • Circus came to Hamilton.
  • Fued arose between the people of Hamilton and the circus people.
  • One Hamilton individual proceeded to attach a person he believes to be part of the circus.
  • Witnesses decided to join in the attack.
  • Victim died.
  • Held that although there was no prior plan between individuals, there was a spontaneous coming together for criminal purpose.
  • Art and part liability for murder applied.
12
Q

Case 12 : Bayne v. H.M. Advocate 1980

A
  • Several individuals involved in a robbery.
  • Victim died as result of being stabbed by one of the accused.
  • If others knew he possessed a knife before the robbery they would be liable for murder.
  • Held that lack of knowledge of the knife meant only the assailant who possessed the knife was charged with murder as he strayed outside the common plan.
13
Q

Case 13 : H.M. Advocate v. Camerons 1911

A
  • Husband and wide claim they have been robbed.
  • Notified both the police and their insurance company.
  • They had not actually filled out the claim form for the insurance company.
  • Therefore they did not satisfy ‘the last act’ test not the ‘beyond recall’ test as they could still repent.
  • Held that it became a question of degree for the jury and they were both convicted.
  • Preparation to perpetrate.
14
Q

Case 14 : Docherty v. Brown 1996

A
  • Accused charged with attempting to possess a controlled substance with intent to supply.
  • It emerged that the ‘drugs’ purchased by the accused were not drugs at all.
  • Convicted of attempting to commit a crime as he still possessed the necessary men’s rea.
  • Impossible attempts.
15
Q

Case 15 : West v. H.M. Advocate 1985

A
  • Two accused sat outside a bank with a blade and open razor.
  • They were charged with conspiracy to assault and rob.
  • Held that although there was no actual ‘attempt’ two people had acted together in preparation of a crime which has not yet been attempted.
  • Loitering suspiciously with weapons.
16
Q

Case 16 : Baxter v. H.M. Advocate 1997

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.
  • Tenant was killed despite there being no explicit instructions to have him killed.
  • Held that incitement could be charged where the accused was serious in inviting another to commit a crime.
  • It is enough that the accused is serious.
17
Q

Case 17 : Drury v. H.M. Advocate 2001

A
  • Drury murdered his ex-wife with a claw hammer upon discovering she had slept with another man.
  • Case brought about new definition of murder.
  • Lord Roger stated there must be ‘wicked intent’ to kill or ‘wicked recklessness’.
  • Case accepted provocation in the form of sexual infidelity.
  • For defence of provocation they had to determine
    1) did he snap and 2) would the ordinary man have responded in the same way when discovering sexual infidelity.
  • Wicked intent.
18
Q

Case 18 : H.M. Advocate v. Purcell 2008

A
  • Young child killed by Purcell who was driving extremely dangerously.
  • Must have been some sort of intention to kill to charge murder.
  • Held that Purcells actions were not intended and he was charged with the lesser crime of culpable homicide.
  • Wicked recklessness.
19
Q

Case 19 : Petto v. H.M. Advocate 2012

A
  • Petto set fire to a tenement which caused an explosion killing a person in another flat.
  • He pleas guilty for murder.
  • Tried to withdraw his plea and have it reduced to culpable homicide.
  • Five bench decision found him guilty of murder.
  • Held that deliberately setting fire to first floor flat meant it was inevitable someone would be injured even if this consequence is not desired, if you know it may happen then you intent it to happen.
20
Q

Case 20 : Tomney v. H.M. Advocate 2012

A
  • Appellants appeal against conviction for culpable homicide by culpably and recklessly discharging a handgun causing a persons death was refused where the evidence was consistent with either reckless or grossly negligent conduct in the appellants part and provided consistent and powerful body of material from which the jury were entitled to draw the inference that they had.
  • Lawful act, involuntary culpable homicide.
21
Q

Case 21 : Transco PLC v. H.M. Advocate (No.1)

A
  • Public has transporter charged with breaking Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in respect to a gas explosion, resulting in the death of four people.
  • Held that Transco had “shown a complete and utter disregard for the public”.
  • It is possible to convict of culpable homicide only if the court could identify an individual or group of individuals being a directing mind in the company, therefore chances of culpable homicide were irrelevant and subsequently dismissed.
22
Q

Case 22 : John Roy 1839 Bells Notes 88

A
  • Accused acquitted of assault as he didn’t intent to cause injury.
  • No intent to cause injury.
23
Q

Case 23 : Smart v. H.M Advocate 1975

A
  • Smart was charged with assault.
  • Defence was that his victim Wilkie has consented to a “square go”.
  • Held that it was not a defence if there was consent.
24
Q

Case 24 : R. V. Brown 1994

A
  • Five appellants engaged in sadomasochistic sexual act, consenting to the harm which they received.
  • None of the individuals involved complained against acts, they were uncovered in an unrelated police investigation.
  • Held that the consent of the victim was no defence and the appellants pleaded guilty.
25
Q

Case 25 : Stewart v. Nisbet 2013

A
  • Two police officers often engaged in ‘banter’.
  • Defendant took it too far by wrapping sellotape around the others face and causing injury.
  • He believed she was consenting.
  • Court did not accept this as a defence.
  • Error as to consent.
26
Q

Case 26 : H.M Advocate v. Harris 1993

A
  • Bouncer doing his job and caused serious injury.
  • Held that reckless conduct was a criminal act in Scots law.
  • Assault requires intent, but causing real injury by reckless conduct is a crime.
27
Q

Case 27 : Black v. Carmichael 1992

A
  • Clamping a car is theft because they are temporarily appropriating the main purpose of the vehicle.
  • Temporary appropriation.
28
Q

Case 28 : Adcock v. Archibald 1925

A
  • Coal minor would receive bonus at the end of the day if he got it over a specific weight.
  • Individuals had separate hutches.
  • D swapped name tags on hutches to get bonus.
  • Neither miner had enough for a bonus.
  • Held that everyday the weights get logged and that is evidence on when they have to make people redundant and thus was big enough result as he still got more coal logged.
  • Even a small practical result will suffice.
29
Q

Case 29 : Byrne v. H.M. Advocate (No.2) 2000

A
  • Accused set fire to paper which set a house on fire.
  • Changed the meaning of wilful to wilful or reckless.
  • Leading case of wilful fire-raising.
30
Q

Case 30 : Smith v. Donnelly 2001

A
  • Accused charged with breach of the peace for lying on a road outside army base protesting against nuclear weapons.
  • Argued it was against article 7 because ‘breach of the peace’ was undefined but this was dismissed.
  • Important case as it brought around a new definition of breach of the peace.
31
Q

Case 31 : Jones v. Carnegie; Tallents v. Gallacher 2004

A
  • Both charged with breach of the peace as they said it was against article 10 and 11.
  • Although it was held that some rights have restrictions.
  • Five bench decision.
32
Q

Case 32 : Harris v. H.M Advocate 2010

A
  • Man verbally threatened two police offers on separate attempts.
  • Said this was not breach of the police but court said they didn’t need to define public disturbance.
  • They were charged.
  • Conduct must affect the public peace for breach of the peace.
33
Q

Case 33 : Gubinas and Radavicius v. H.M. Advocate 2017

A
  • Appellants and two others were charged with the rape and sexual assault of the complainer.
  • Complainer had been in the same nightclub as the accused, left in a car with them thinking she was going to a party.
  • Instead, she was taken to a farmhouse where the assault took place.
  • Some of the assault was recorded on mobiles.
  • Complainer accepted that footage may appear to depict consensual sexual activity.
  • Instead it showed that she was so intoxicated that she was deprived of the ability to consent.
34
Q

Case 34 : Moorov v. H.M. Advocate 1930

A
  • An employer has committed a string of sexual offences.
  • Victims were able to corroborate each other even though it was separate crimes.
  • Multiple similar crimes can corroborate one another.
  • Looked at as a course of conduct.
35
Q

Case 35 : Lawrie v. Muir 1950

A
  • Evidence on stolen milk bottles was obtained by searching a persons home with a fake warrant there was dismissed.
  • Illegal evidence should be excluded.
36
Q

Case 36 : Cadder v. H.M. Advocate 2011

A
  • Any confession to the police by a suspect will only be admissible if the suspect is offered legal advice.
  • Supreme Court said that the UK has to comply with the ECHR.
  • If police don’t offer legal advice before you are interviewed, then the evidence is admissible.
  • Don’t have to accept the lawyer.
  • Calder distinguished if you confess to the police and the lawyer isn’t there then the evidence isn’t admissible.
37
Q

Case 38 : Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates 1953

A
  • An expert can only give evidence and this doesn’t undermine the role of the jury.
  • Experts role is to provide information on matters out-with normal experience.
38
Q

Case 39 : Smart v. Parsley 1970

A
  • Women charged with people smoking cannabis the house she rented to them under strict liability.
  • On appeal held this was unfair since she seemed to genuinely not know.
  • Presumption against strict liability.
39
Q

Case 40 : Owens v. H.M. Advocate 1946

A
  • Accused of killing someone in self-defence.
  • Charge dropped because it was held as a genuine mistake.
  • Error must be genuine and reasonable.
40
Q

Case 41 : Brennan v. H.M Advocate 1977

A
  • Man killed father after 25 pints, a glass of sherry and some LSD.
  • Said he couldn’t be convicted as he had no men’s rea.
  • Held that the wicked recklessness of drinking past the point of control was enough for murder.
  • Voluntary intoxication is no defence.
41
Q

Case 42 : Ross v. H.M. Advocate 1991

A
  • Accused went mad with a knife.
  • Acquitted of the crimes because he could prove he was spiked.
  • Automatism is a recognised defence.
42
Q

Case 43 : Thomson v. H.M. Advocate 1983

A
  • Accused drove away van for robbery claiming he was coerced.
  • Hume set our criteria for coercion.
    1) Immediate threat of death
    2) Immediate threat of bodily harm
    3) Inability to resist
    4) Threats of Violence
43
Q

Case 44 : R v. Dudley and Stephens 1884

A
  • 3 people ate a boy to save themselves.
  • Argued it was necessity therefore not murder.
  • Necessity which justifies homicide is of two kinds.
    1) Necessity which is of a private nature
    2) Necessity which relates to public justice or safety.
  • Can kill the assailant but not an innocent party.
44
Q

Case 45 : Moss v. Howdle 1997

A
  • Man thought his friend was having a heart attack.
  • Drove fast to get him to the nearest service station.
  • His friend only had cramp.
  • Let off for genuine mistake.
  • Necessity extends to 3rd person.
  • Danger of death of great bodily harm.
45
Q

Case 46 : H.M. Advocate v. Anderson 2006

A
  • Women ran someone over to stop another crime being committed.
  • Necessity is a defence to murder.
46
Q

Case 47 : H.M. Advocate v. Doherty 1954

A
  • Man killer his attacker when he has a reasonable means of escape and friends who could have helped him.
  • Charged with culpable homicide.
  • Self-defence can only be used with reasonable force.
  • There must also be no alternative means.
47
Q

Case 48 : Fenning v. H.M. Advocate 1985

A
  • Man repeatedly hit victim over the head in self-defence.

- No cruel excess of violence can be used.

48
Q

Case 49 : Thomson v. H.M. Advocate 1986

A
  • Man was mocked by a business partner and had an argument with him.
  • Killed him with a knife.
  • Words are no provocation therefore this was not a valid excuse.
  • Provocation by immediate retaliation.
49
Q

Case 50: Gillian v. H.M. Advocate 2007

A
  • Accused was charged with murder by striking the victim with a spade after being provoked by sexual infidelity.
  • Five bench decision.
  • Sexual infidelity is provocation for murder.
50
Q

Case 51 : Donnelly v. H.M. Advocate 2017

A
  • Appellant was convicted of murder by repeatedly striking the deceased with a knife.
  • Argued self-defence as the deceased was going to attack appellants friend with a bottle.
  • Question of whether provocation could arise from the acts of the deceased towards a third party or or was restricted to where an accused had been assaulted and subjected to substantial provocation.
  • Held that provocation wouldn’t extend to acts towards a third party.