Homicide, Omissions & Defences

Question 1

R v Miller [1983] — principle?

Accepted Answer

A person who inadvertently creates a dangerous situation and becomes aware of it is under a duty to take reasonable steps to counteract it (the squatter and the mattress fire). (Source: [1983] 2 AC 161 (HL))

Question 2

R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] — principle?

Accepted Answer

A duty to act can arise from voluntarily assuming care of a vulnerable person; gross failure to discharge it can amount to manslaughter. (Source: [1977] QB 354 (CA))

Question 3

R v Adomako [1995] — test for gross negligence manslaughter?

Accepted Answer

A duty of care, breach causing death, and negligence so bad that the jury considers it criminal (gross). (Source: [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL))

Question 4

R v Church [1966] — unlawful act manslaughter dangerousness test?

Accepted Answer

The unlawful act must be one that all sober and reasonable people would recognise as subjecting the victim to the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm. (Source: [1966] 1 QB 59 (CCA); DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500)

Question 5

R v Pagett (1983) — causation principle?

Accepted Answer

A reasonable act of self-preservation by a third party (police returning fire) does not break the chain of causation; the defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield. (Source: (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 (CA))

Question 6

R v Cheshire [1991] — when does medical negligence break the chain?

Accepted Answer

Only where it is so independent of the defendant's acts, and so potent in causing death, that the defendant's contribution is insignificant. (Source: [1991] 1 WLR 844 (CA))

Question 7

R v Howe [1987] and R v Gotts [1992] — duress?

Accepted Answer

Duress is no defence to murder (Howe) or attempted murder (Gotts). (Source: [1987] AC 417 (HL); [1992] 2 AC 412 (HL))

Question 8

R v Hasan [2005] — limit on duress?

Accepted Answer

Duress is unavailable where the defendant voluntarily associated with criminals and foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to compulsion by threats of violence. (Source: [2005] UKHL 22)

Question 9

DPP v Majewski [1977] — voluntary intoxication?

Accepted Answer

Voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent, though it may negate the specific intent required for crimes of specific intent. (Source: [1977] AC 443 (HL))

Question 10

R v Brown [1994] — held?

Accepted Answer

Consent is no defence to actual bodily harm or wounding inflicted in sado-masochistic encounters. (Source: [1994] 1 AC 212 (HL))

Question 11

Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s 1 and R v Shivpuri [1987]?

Accepted Answer

An attempt requires an act more than merely preparatory with intent to commit the offence; Shivpuri held impossibility is no defence. (Source: CAA 1981, s 1; [1987] AC 1 (HL))

Question 12

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 — ss 47, 20 and 18?

Accepted Answer

s 47: assault occasioning actual bodily harm. s 20: unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm. s 18: wounding or causing GBH with intent. (Source: OAPA 1861, ss 18, 20, 47)

1.R v Miller [1983] — principle?

2.R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] — principle?

3.R v Adomako [1995] — test for gross negligence manslaughter?

4.R v Church [1966] — unlawful act manslaughter dangerousness test?

5.R v Pagett (1983) — causation principle?

6.R v Cheshire [1991] — when does medical negligence break the chain?

7.R v Howe [1987] and R v Gotts [1992] — duress?

8.R v Hasan [2005] — limit on duress?

9.DPP v Majewski [1977] — voluntary intoxication?

10.R v Brown [1994] — held?

11.Criminal Attempts Act 1981, s 1 and R v Shivpuri [1987]?

12.Offences Against the Person Act 1861 — ss 47, 20 and 18?