Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
32 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
1. R v Nicklinson
|
Nicklinson suffered from locked in syndrome, following a stroke that rendered every muscle in his body below his eyelid paralyzed. He sought a declaration that it would be lawful on ground of necessity for this doctors or his wife to terminate his life, since his condition rendered his life intolerable. He claimed that a refusal would be in violation of his human rights and his autonomy. His claim was rejected.
|
|
|
2. St. George’s NHS Health Care Trust v S
|
S was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia requiring admission to hospital and induction of labor, but refused treatment because she did not agree with medical intervention in pregnancy. It was held to be unlawful for a doctor to perform an emergency caesarean without her consent, though it was necessary to save them both.
|
|
|
3. Inglis
|
Thomas had suffered serious head injuries when he had fallen out of an ambulance. After surgery he was in a vegetative state. The appellant injected him with a lethal dose of heroin with the intention to kill. She appealed against her conviction. Held that her conviction was upheld. Bipolar. Manslaughter.
|
|
|
4. R v Woolin
|
The appellant threw his 3-month-old baby son on to a hard surface. The baby suffered a fractured skull and died. He was convicted of murder and also rejected the defence of provocation.
|
|
|
5. Woolin test
|
Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case.
|
|
|
6. R v Vickers
|
During D’s burglary of V’s shop, V discovered D whereupon D struck V with several blows. V eventually died from shock due to general injuries. He was guilty of murder because he intended to do grievous bodily harm.
|
|
|
7. Cunningham
|
D attacked V in a pub, hitting him repeatedly with a chair, which resulted in V’s death. Held that intention to cause grievous bodily harm, but not to cause death, is sufficient to establish the mens rea for murder. Guilty.
|
|
|
8. Acott
|
The appellant, aged 48, lived with his mother and became financially dependent on her. D called an ambulance as his mother had fallen down the stairs. She died. His mother had mocked him and berated him for being inadequate and he then lost his control and attacked her and pushed her down the stairs. But there was no evidence of provocation and it could not be used as a defence. Guilty.
|
|
|
9. Ibrams & Gregory
|
V was violent towards D and his girlfriend. D’s friend and the couple hatched a plan for D’s girlfriend to get him drunk and get him to bed. Then D and his friend would beat him. But they went further and killed him. Provocation could not be used as a defence since they had planned the whole thing. Guilty.
|
|
|
10. Duffy
|
D killed her husband after mistreatment. She tried to remove their child from the home and when her husband was asleep killed him with a hatchet and a hammer. Guilty because provocation could not be relied on when there was a time lapse between the provocation and the killing.
|
|
|
11. Provocation Devlin J
|
"Provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind.”
|
|
|
12. Ahluwalia
|
The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. The appellant poured petrol and caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set fire to him. He died six days later from his injuries. Not guilty because loss of self-control did not have to be immediate.
|
|
|
13. Clegg
|
D fired several shots at a car whilst he was on check point duty in Northern Ireland. The car was approaching the checkpoint at speed and did not appear to be going to stop. One of the passengers was killed. Clegg was charged and convicted of murder.
|
|
|
14. Martin
|
D shot two intruders who entered his Norfolk farmhouse in the middle of the night. One was killed the other was seriously injured. Because of past experience D believed his house to be vulnerable to burglary, and he was in genuine fear for his personal safety and that the firing of the gun was in lawful self-defense. Paranoid personality disorder. Guilty of manslaughter. Diminished responsibility.
|
|
|
15. R v Johnson
|
D and V were drinking at a nightclub. V’s girlfriend taunted D, who proceeded to threaten both her and V himself. When D attempted to leave the club, V poured beer over D and pinned D against the wall, whereupon V’s girlfriend attacked D. D stabbed V with a flick knife, causing his death. Manslaughter.
|
|
|
16. R v Bowyer
|
D and his wife suffered from depression and were on medication. They wanted a divorce. Wife agreed to meet the husband and kids to tell them news. D was alone and heavily intoxicated. He had killed her because she told she had 5 lovers, taunted him about a suicide website and said she didn’t want the children. Sexual infidelity cannot be relied upon on its own as a qualifying trigger, but its existence does not prevent reliance on the defence where there exist other qualifying triggers.
|
|
|
17. R v Gittens
|
D was suffering from depression. During a visit home from hospital he argued with his wife and beat her to death and then raped and killed his stepdaughter. At the time of the offence he had been drinking and taking drugs for depression. Held that D can benefit from DR if the inherent causes like depression would have caused him kill whether or not he took drugs or drank alcohol. Manslaughter not murder
|
|
|
18. R v Sutcliffe
|
Peter Sutcliffe, the ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ pleaded diminished responsibility to 13 charges of murder. The medical reports were unanimous in suggesting that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. Guilty of murder.
|
|
|
19. Byrne
|
D strangled to death and then mutilated a young woman in a YWCA, confessing to both in full. D raised the defence of diminished responsibility. Since childhood he had suffered from perverted sexual desires that created irresistible impulses. His acts were driven by one of these impulses on the day in question. Held that diminished responsibility covers all the activities of the mind. Abnormality of the mind does no have to be connected with madness. Manslaughter.
|
|
|
20. Reynolds
|
D was a 19yr old woman who battered her mother to death with a hammer, at the trial for murder, D shown she was suffering from post-natal depression after giving birth without telling the family, the court agreed and D was sentenced with manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.
|
|
|
21. R v Fenton
|
D had consumed a large quantity of drink. He drew a revolver and killed a police officer and left the scene driving the police car. He went to a club where he shot and killed three more people. Held that even if the effect of alcohol was ignored, the effect of the remaining factors was sufficient to cause a substantial impairment of mental responsibility.
|
|
|
22. R v Dowds
|
D killed his partner in a frenzied knife attack whilst he was heavily intoxicated. Both he and his partner were habitual binge drinkers and there had been numerous violent exchanges between the couple, most of which had been initiated by her and most occurred whilst they were intoxicated. Voluntary acute intoxication, whether from alcohol or other substance, is not capable of founding diminished responsibility.
|
|
|
23. R v Dietschmann
|
D killed a man in a savage attack whilst he was very drunk. He was also suffered from a mental abnormality, namely an adjustment disorder which was a depressed grief reaction following the death of his aunt, Sarah, with whom he had had a close emotional and physical relationship and whom he believed had committed suicide because of her drug problems. Held that to benefit from the finding of diminished responsibility, D does not have to show he would have killed had he been sober.
|
|
|
24. R v Egan
|
D who had a mentality bordering on the subnormal, entered the home of an elderly widow after a night of heavy drinking and attacked and killed her, probably with intent to rob her. The difficulty was whether his abnormality had substantially impaired his responsibility for his acts or whether it was the effect of the abnormality in conjunction with the alcohol he had consumed that had done so. Murder
|
|
|
25. R v Wood
|
The appellant was an alcoholic who had been sleeping rough. He had befriended a group of alcoholics’ known as the breakfast club and had drunk heavily with them two days prior to the attack. After the second day of heavy drinking he was invited to spend the night at the deceased’s house. During the night he awoke to find the deceased attempting to perform oral sex on him. He attacked him with a meat cleaver and lump hammer killing him. Manslaughter.
|
|
|
26. R v Stewart
|
The appellant was a chronic alcoholic sleeping rough in Marble Arch. He killed a man in the course of a fight. He raised the defence of diminished responsibility. The effect of the direction was that the defence would not be available if the jury found that any of the appellant's drinking was voluntary.
|
|
|
27. Hyam
|
D sought to frighten an occupant of a house by pouring petrol though the letterbox and then igniting it, resulting in the death of two occupants. Held that intention is to be distinguished from desire and foresight of probable consequences. Guilty
|
|
|
28. Goodfellow
|
D had been harassed by two men and wished to move from his council accommodation. In order to get re-housed he set fire to his house making it look as if it had been petrol bombed. Unfortunately his wife, son and son's girlfriend all died in the fire. Held that his conviction for manslaughter was upheld. There was no requirement that the unlawful act was not directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person.
|
|
|
29. Hancock and Shankland
|
In the midst of a miner’s strike in which they were participating, H and S pushed a concrete block and post from a bridge over the road along which V was driving M; the latter was killed in the collision. Not guilty of murder.
|
|
|
30. Moloney
|
D and V (D’s stepfather of whom D was very fond) had a contest as to loading and firing a shotgun. D a serving soldier shot V without aiming. V taunted D to fire the gun. Incident occurred during a late night of drinking. Not guilty of murder.
|
|
|
31. Lowe
|
The appellant's child died from neglect. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found him guilty of the offence of neglect they must also find him guilty of manslaughter on the grounds that neglect was an unlawful act. The jury convicted him of both neglect and manslaughter. Held that for constructive manslaughter there must be an unlawful 'act'. The offence could not be committed by an omission.
|
|
|
32. R v Franklin
|
D took a box from another man's stall on a pier and threw it into the sea. The box struck and killed V, who was swimming. Held that a civil wrong is immaterial to a charge of manslaughter. Not guilty.
|
