click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Criminal Law - MR
Intent, Recklessness, SL, Fault, Contemporaneity, Transferred Malice
Question | Answer |
---|---|
Mohan | Direct intent to scare or injure the policeman |
Woollin | Oblique intent - harm caused to baby was a virtual certainty (subjective) so there was intent |
Matthews and Alleyne | Oblque intent - knew he couldn't swim so virtual certainty of V's death |
Cunningham | D tore gas meter off wall - didn't see the risk so not subjectively reckless (found NG) |
Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd | D strictly liable - no need to prove he knew prescription was forged |
Callow v Tillstone | Butcher convicted of selling bad meat despite obtaining vet certification because it was a strict liability offence |
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah | Shopkeeper convicted for selling lottery tickets to people that are underage but didn't know - strict liability |
Sweet v Parsley | Teacher let house to students who smoked weed. D found guilty despite no MR - strict liability |
Latimer | D got into fight in pub and accidentaly hit bystander in face with belt. D liable as the mens rea was transferred to the woman |
Mitchell | D pushed old man in Q at post office. He fell pushing V over. V died. conviction of manslaughter upheld as malice transferred |
Pembliton | D threw stones into crowd of people causing window to smash. mens rea couldn't be transferred from OAP to a property offence |
Fagan v Met Police Commissioner | D accidentally drove onto policeman's foot then refused to move. this was a continuing act so AR and MR were at same time |
G | Two kids set light to bin => co-op => 1m damage. D's not convicted as they didn't see the risk (subjective test) |
Thabo Meli | D's hit V, then threw him off cliff thinking he was dead. V died from exposure, not blows. Acts were seen as continuing so AR and MR were simultaneous |