Things got out of hand and the appellant went and grabbed his shot gun and what he believed to be blank cartridges. She appealed on the grounds that the judge's direction to the jury relating to provocation was wrong and she also raised the defence of diminished responsibility. She was convicted of murder. Whether words alone could constitute an assault and the temporal element of fear of immediate violence. The defendant appealed on the grounds that this was a mis-direction and the judge should have used the direction in ()R v Smith (Morgan). thereafter dies and the injuries inflicted while in utero either caused or made a substantial This, in our view, is the correct definition of provocation: "The third point taken by Mr. McHale is that the deputy chairman was wrong in directing the jury that before the appellant could use force in self-defence he was required to retreat. The appellant had also raised interests of Jodie must be preferred to the conflicting interests of Mary, I consider that all Fagans conviction was upheld. a wound or serious physical injury. a positive act and so the test was not of whether the omission was reasonably foreseeable. That direction was given before the publication of the speeches in the House of Lords in Moloney (1985) AC 905 and Hancock (1986) 2 V.L.R. The direction was based on a passage in the 41st Edition of Archbold, which has been repeated in the 42nd Edition, paragraph 17-13. A child had burned to death in a house where the defendant had, without warning, put a petrol bomb through the letter box. The actus reus for murder is the unlawful killing of a human being caused by an act or omission of the defendant. An appeal was brought on the basis that the defendant had no case to answer; a husband could not rape his wife, as a wife impliedly consented to intercourse for the duration of the marriage. During the break-in, Vickers came across the victim who resided in the flat above the shop. They threw him off the bridge into the river below despite hearing the victim say that he could not swim. Appeal dismissed. among practitioners and judges. Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp R v G and F [2013] Crim LR 678. The defendant argued the man's actions in opening the wounds amounted to the act of injection was not unlawful. In order to break the chain of causation, an event must be: unwarrantable, a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events [and] can be described as either unreasonable or extraneous or extrinsic (p. 43). On appeal it was argued by counsel for the appellant that the judge at trial had erred in striking out the submission of the defence, in that not all deceptions amounted to fraud of a type that could vitiate consent; only those which spoke to the nature of the act itself or the identity of the person perpetrating the fraud were capable of doing so. As a result of the fire a child died and Nedrick was charged with murder. The appellant waved a razor about intending to frighten his mistress's lover. Jurors found it difficult to understand: it also sometimes offended their sense of justice. Facts: The appellant set the letter box of the house on fire. enterprise could not be proven and, consequently, the case for robbery failed. How likely is the adverse effect to occur, does it have to be virtually certain to occur or does it have to be merely probable? The accused left the yard with the papers still burning. He was also having an affair. The chain of causation was not broken on the facts of this case. Jurors found it difficult to understand: it also sometimes offended their sense of justice. [5]The courts indicated that there are two questions that should be considered:[6]. Causation and whether consent of victim to injections is relevant; requirements of unlawful and malicious administration of noxious thing under s. 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Mr Williams and Mr Davis were convicted of manslaughter and robbery after the jury accepted that they robbed the victim (as pre-planned) and threatened him with physical violence as a result of which he jumped out of the car; Mr Bobat was acquitted. consequences, but that intention could be established if there was evidence of foresight. Her conviction was therefore quashed. following morning. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. the defence had been raised. They lit some of the newspapers and threw them on the concrete floor underneath a large plastic wheelie bin. Under s.1(1) of CAYPA 1933 wilful neglect means that the neglect was deliberate and not merely inadvertent. judges direction to the contrary. look at the text books on the subject, and has demonstrated to us that the text books in the Overturning the CA decision, the HL held that that an intention to kill or cause serious injury to a pregnant woman could not be transferred from the mother to the foetus . Where there was no such evidence, but merely the speculative possibility that there had been an act of provocation, it was wrong for the judge to direct the jury to consider provocation. hospital was dropped twice by those carrying him. trial for arson reckless as to endangering life he said that he had been so drunk that the As the court understands it, it is submitted that if the injury results in death then the accused cannot set up self-defence except on the basis that he had retreated before he resorted to violence. The defendant, Mohamed Dica was charged with inflicting two counts of grievous bodily harm under s 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. "Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. suffered fatal injuries. Jordan, who worked for the United States Air Force, stabbed a man as the result of a The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction of ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861 and certified a point of law to the House of Lords as to whether it was necessary under s.20 to establish that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of GBH or whether it was sufficient that the defendant foresaw some harm. One of the pre-requisites for such an application was that it must be shown the evidence was not available at the initial trial stage. She returned the rammer outside and washed it off, she also took the towel she held it with and placed it in a plastic bag, walked down the street and threw the plastic bag containing the towel in a near by bush. Under the Street Offences Act 1959 c.57, the police officer had no power to detain the woman. Mr. Parameter was also convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm. When he returned home in the early hours of the following morning he found her dead. Conviction was quashed. Cite. Convicted of murder. [16]The House of Lords held in cases concerning oblique intention then the jury may not find intention for the offence of murder unless death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certain result of the defendants prohibited act and also that the defendant had appreciated this. She plunged the knife into his stomach which killed him. According to Lord Steyn, The surest test of a new legal rule is not whether it satisfies a team of logicians but how it performs in the real world. [23]Alan Norrie addressed this issue:[24], the Houses view in Woollin departs from a previous reluctance to recognise that Hyam could not stand with the later cases. Held An intention to injure was not an essential ingredient of an action for trespass to the person, since it was the mere trespass by itself which was the offence and therefore it was the act rather than the injury which had to be intentional. They lit some of the newspapers and threw them on the concrete floor The meter however the dramatic way suggested by Mr. McHale; but what is necessary is that he should Because we accept this dictum as sound it is necessary for us to state what we now consider to be the proper definition of provocation arising as it does from R v Duffy (, n, CCA) elaborated in Lee Chun-Chuen v R (, , , 106 Sol Jo 1008, PC), and amended by R v Bunting ((1965), ). (ii) (ii) that it was in Jodie's best interest, and (iii) that in any event it would be legal. Felix Julien was convicted of murder and appealed on the ground that there was a Lord Mackay LC set the test for gross negligence manslaughter: "On this basis in my opinion the ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply to ascertain whether or not the defendant has been in breach of a duty of care towards the victim who has died. In Woollin Lord Steyn laid down a model direction for trial judges to use in cases where the defendant's intention is unclear, subsequently this direction has been used in the cases of R. v. Matthews & Alleyne [2003] and in R. v. Matthew Stringer [2008]. An unlawful act had been committed consisting of the assault against the mistress's lover. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Nonetheless the boys were convicted and the Court of Appeal, basing itself on Caldwell, affirmed the conviction because the boys gave no thought to a risk of damaging the buildings which would have been obvious to any reasonable adult. He was convicted of constructive manslaughter and appealed. Matthews was born on April 1, 1982 and was 17. The appeal would be allowed. Decision The convictions were quashed. R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) - EBradbury The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. Intention In The Case Of Woollins Law Essay - UKEssays.com The appellant had been out drinking with a friend, Eric Bishop, a man of low intelligence and He then claimed that she mocked his sexual ability and boasted that her new lover was a better performer. Experience suggests that in Caldwell the law took a wrong turn.. but later re-opened his wounds in what was thought to be a suicide and died two days after He argued that he was not reckless since he had been sure that he would not break the window, due to his skill. The defendant had a stormy relationship with the deceased. Rep. 152.. R v Smith (1959) 2 Q. The defendants It is this area of intention that has caused problems and confusion in the law. The respondent stabbed his girlfriend in the stomach knowing at the time that she was pregnant. Decision The stab wound and not the girls refusal to accept medical treatment was the operating cause of death. The defendant was charged on the basis that while knowing he was HIV positive, he had unprotected sexual intercourse with two women who were unaware of his infection. The appellant drove a van above the speed limit and overtook another car. App. There was no requirement that the foetus be classed as a human being provided causation was proved. Scarman expressed the view that intention was not to be equated with foresight of breathes when it is born before it its whole body is delivered does not mean that it is born A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. The accused left the yard with the papers still burning. Though it was wrong to elevate a rule of evidence into one of law, in this no injustice was caused. Concerning the temporal aspect of the fear of violence, the Court held that, for the purposes of proving an assault, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the victim feared violence at some time not excluding the immediate future. The Court held that this element was fulfilled, placing emphasis upon the close proximity of the mans house to the victims and his delivery of the most recent letters to her house. The defendant had a brief relationship with a woman She ended the relationship and he could not accept her decision and embarked on a campaign of harassment against her over a period of 8 months. The defendant approached a petrol station manned by a 50 year old male. When proposing that the conduct is not rightly so charged I do not invite your Lordships' House to endorse it as morally acceptable. of the statement, but Mr Williams argued that the evidence was too tenuous to go before the He died six days later from his injuries. The defence of honest belief was not upheld under s 20 of the Act. 3 of 1994) (1997) 3 All ER 936. R v Dyson (1908) 2 K. 454 R v Adams (1957) Crim. One issue which arose concerned the It was sufficient that they intended or could foresee that some harm will result. 11 WIR 102Held: (i) that although provocation is not specifically raised as a defence, where there is some evidence of provocation it is the duty of the trial judge to direct the jury as fully as if the defence had been raised. The victim visited the defendants room and asked for a bit to make him sleep. The victim died in hospital eight days later. actions must be proportional to the gravity of the threat. death. that the prosecution has to establish an intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm on the part He became involved in an apparently unprovoked argument. The appeal was allowed. This is Consideration was given, inter alia, as to whether the deceaseds alleged conduct in punching the defendant had amounted to provocative conduct so that the judge should have directed the jury as to provocation. However, Mary was weaker, she was described as The case was appealed by the appellant on the basis of this instruction to the jury in addition to arguing for a lack of mens rea to cause harm. The defendant claimed to have felt endangered by the victims aggressive demeanour and so punched the victim, and proceeded to violently attack him. They were both heavily intoxicated. The defendant and victim were living together in a hostel. He also claimed that heroin was not a noxious thing and that malicious administration under s. 23 OAPA 1861 had not occurred i.e. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal who quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. statement, it did not render the evidence inadmissible. jury that if they were satisfied the defendant "must have realised and appreciated when he [1963] 1 All ER 73Held: (i) the direction at (a) above was not wholly accurate because if the fatal blow was struck as a direct consequence and under the stress of a provocative act it was wholly immaterial that there had been some previous intent to kill or do serious bodily injury unless that intent continued to be operative so that the fatal blow may fairly be attributed thereto notwithstanding the intervening provocative act: R v Kirkham ((1837), 8 C & P 115, 15 Digest (Repl) 938, 8989.) inevitably lead to the death of Mary, but Jodie would have a strong chance of living an . R. 8 and Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1937] A.C. 576, without reference to the test of recklessness as defined in R. v. Lawrence (Stephen) [1982] A.C. 510 or as adapted to the circumstances of the. the victims lungs. [7]The courts interpreted this as requiring a subjective test and this settled the answer to the first question, but led to a series of conflicting decisions on the second question:[8]How likely is the adverse effect to occur, does it have to be virtually certain to occur or does it have to be merely probable? The current definition is largely the product of judicial law making in individual cases and it was suggested by the law commission that if a definition of indirect intention was to be put in statute then the Woollin direction would be used. Recklessness required the defendant to have an appreciation of the risk. murder cases for law Flashcards | Quizlet The jury convicted and the appellant appealed. He was again convicted at the retrial and again appealed. The defendants threw the victim into a deep river after robbing him knowing he could not swim. R v Matthews and Alleyne [2003] EWCA Crim 192. Per Curiam: the presence of an intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm is contrary to She awoke around six oclock in the morning and with her son she called the police and reported the matter. The defendants demanded money but did not touch the attendant who pressed the alarm button and the defendants ran away without obtaining any cash. The court in the Facts The chain of causation between the defendants act in supplying the drug and the victims death was therefore incomplete. The boys appealed to the Lords with the following certified question of law: There is no requirement that the defendant foresees that some harm will result from his action. The defendant drove off whilst the victim was having a conversation with him; the victims head still part way in the car, The defendants head was crushed by the rear wheel of the car. On the day in question they had both been to the pub in the afternoon. Facts He also argued that his confession had been obtained under duress and R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) - Hodder Education Magazines landmarks in the common law R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) Ian Yule examines a case you can use in oblique-intent questions A Level Law Review Volume 10, 2014/ 2015 Issue 1 Murder A Level Law Review Criminal law General elements of criminal liability Twitter Linked In Facebook However, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The psychiatric reports were not therefore put before the jury. When he returned home in the early hours of the following morning he found her dead. The complainants could not have given proper consent as they were not honestly informed. "drowning virtual certainty, D's knew that, had intention to kill" R v MATTHEWS AND ALLEYNE [2003] EWCA Crim 192 (CA) The broader issue in the case was what amounts to medical evidence disclosed that the deceased suffered massive injuries which, with traumatic It was held that as the victim was a fully informed and consenting adult, who had freely and voluntarily self-administered the drug without any pressure from the defendant, this was an intervening act. There was a material misdirection which expanded the mens rea of murder and therefore the murder conviction was unsafe. To satisfy the mens rea element of maliciously, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the defendant intended the level of harm inflicted. Both women got out, hailed a passing car and got into it. The trial judge made several errors in his direction to the jury and in the event they convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. intended result.22 But, in Matthews and Alleyne, his approach was interpreted as a rule of evidence and not one of substantive law.23 The model direction endorsed by Lord Steyn also implies that it is a rule of Ashworth indicates that this is based on the Woollin direction. The grandmother called her an old mule as she entered the house and thereafter made a grab at her as she proceeded towards the room in which she and her paramour slept together. The judge considered that there was time for reflection and cooling-off between the appellants knowledge of the threats and the carrying out the shooting. French student was lodging at the house of Mrs Fox who was engaged to the appellant. At his trial of murder, the judge directed the jury that the foreseeability on the . misdirection on a question of law, in that the trial judge omitted to direct the jury that they mothers body. ". The significance of [English] lies in the emphasis it laid (a) on the overriding importance in this context of what the particular defendant subjectively said to be a radical departure from what was intended or foreseen. some cases, it will be almost impossible to find that intention did not exist. The jury was thus not misdirected. The meter however was connected to the neighbouring house which was occupied by the appellants future mother-in-law. She did not raise the defence of provocation but the judge directed the jury on provocation. The defendants attempted a robbery with an imitation gun and a pick-axe handle. to make it incumbent on the trial judge to give such a direction. He stated that he did not think anyone was in the vicinity and did not foresee a risk of any harm he only wanted to see how far the pellets would go. The defendant killed his wife after seeing her lover walk towards her place of work. The Court of Appeal confirmed, allowing the appeal, that fraud only negatived consent in circumstances where the victim was deceived as to either the nature of the act performed or the identity of those performing it. A 14 year old girl set fire to a shed by setting light to white spirit on the carpet. failing to give any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk. Woke her husband and again asked him to come to bed. Facts The defendants robbed an A-level student that they seemingly knew of his wallet. Section 20 requires an intention or reckless on the part of the defendant/appellant in their actions, which was found not to exist. Goff LJ, who delivered the leading judgment, stated that precedent was relatively clear on the matter, and further that: It is not enough that there has been a rupturing of a blood vessel or vessels internally for there to be a wound under the statute because it is impossible for a court to conclude from that evidence alone that there has been a break in the continuity of the whole skin ([341]).