criminal law cases

A man poisened his mother's tea, intending to kill her. By chance she died of an unrelated heart attacl, before the poisen could take affect.

So, he wasnt guilty of her murder as he did not actually cause her death.

A man stabbed a teenage girl and she refused a potentially life-saving blood transfusion because of her religious beliefs.

 He was still guilty of causing her death.

A man struck out at an intend victim woth a belt, but it bounced off and severly injured someone else.

His intention to injure one person was transferred to his actual victim.

A man ripped out a coing-operated gas meter, to take the contents, but did not turn off the gas, which leaked into the next flat, injuring its elderly occupants.

The house of lords confirmed the meaning of recklessness in this case.

Boys aged 11 and 12 set fire to newspapers and put them into wheelie bins outside a supermarket. the fire spread, setting light to the building causing £1 million damage.

They were not reckless since it was accepted that they did not foresee the risk of the fire spreading in this way.

Mr Storkwain was a pharmasist who unknowingly dispensed prescription only drugs on the basis of a forged prescription.

 He was guilty of the offence of dispensing the drugs without valid prescription, as the medicines act 1968 made it clear this is a strict liability offence.

A restaurant manager's staff unknowingly sold lemonade which had been contaminated with caustic soda, left in the bottle when the pumps were cleaned.

This was a strict liability offence under the Food and Drugs Act 1955

After her husband threatened to burn her face with a hot iron on top of years of demestic abuse, the defendant threw caustic soda and petrol over him as he slept and set fire to it. He died six days later.

On appeal it was accepted that she was suffering from diminished responsibility due to battered woman syndrome and sever depression.

The Norfolk farmer, Tony Martin, had been burgled several times. this had an even greater impact on him, as he suffered from depression and paranoia due to childhood abuse.  He became paranoid that intruders would eneter his home and developed unusual behaviour, sleeping fully clothed on top of his bed, with a shotgun.

He allowed his house to become derelict around him, boarding up windows, as a fortress. On the night in question, he shot a sixteen year-old burglar in the back, killing him as he was trying to escape through a window.

Th case caused heated debate on the issue of self-defence, which was rejected in his case, as he used 'excessive force'. he was originally convicted of murder, and this was reduced on appeal to voluntary manslaughter on the grounds that his paranoid personality disorder amounted to and 'abnormality of mind' for the purposes of diminished responsibility.

His life sentence was reduced to find years imprisonment, of which he served three years.

The defendant killed his 17-day old baby whose continual crying made him lose control.

His murder conviction was overturned as the judge should have allowed the jury to decide whether the reasonable man would have respnded in this way.

The defendant had been terrorised by the victim, an ex-boyfriend. They planned to lure him to her, and attacked him. They did so and he died.

The defence of provocation did not succeed as there was not a 'sudden' loss of control.

The defendant, Camplin, was a 15 year-old boy who had been sexually abused by the victim, a middle aged man, who then laughed at him. Camplin hit him over the head with a chipati pan, killing him.

Provocation was accepted on appeal, and the court confirmed that he was to be compared to a reasonable boy of his age when deciding if the reasonable person may also have lost control and done as he did.

The defendant was teenage boys, who through paving slabs from a railway bridge. They struck a train, killing the driver, and claimed that they did not know their actions were dangerous and could result in injury.

They were found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter as the ordinary reasonable man would have realised their actions were dangerous.

The defendant was a railway employee whose duties included lowering the level crossing gate before a train approached, to stop pedestrians and vehicles from crossing the tracks. On this occassion, he forgot to close the gate before going off for lunch and the driver of a hay cart was killed by the on coming train.

An anaesthetist caused a patients death from a heart attack, brought on by a lack of oxygen. The anaesthetist failed to notice obvious signs that the ventilator tubs had become disconnected during an eye operation.

The defendant made a series of menacing silent phone calls, which caused the victim to fear he may attack her at any time.

 This was an assault although he had not even touched her. He intenionally caused her to apprehend force.

A police officer grabbed a womans arm to attract her attention.

This was unlawful force, so she was entitled to defend herself, as the officer could have used other methods of attracting attention.

A woman threw beer at her ex-boyfriends new girlfriend, and the beer glass flew out of her hand and caused minor injury to the victims arm.

Throwing beer ia a battery as it is intentional use of unlawful force, and the battery caused actual bodily harm. It did not matter that she did not intend or foresee any injury might occur.

A woman suffered injuries when she jumped from a moving, due to the defendant unwanted sexual advances.

He was found guilty of causing ABH.

There was no wounding when the defendant shot the victim in the eye with an airgun, as there was no break in the skin, only broken blood vessels or internal bleeding.

A sustained campaign of harassment, including stalking, caused a woman to suffer sever depressive illness.

This was sufficient enough to amount to GBH as it was serious harm.

The defendant caused serious wounds to the victims face and chest with a razor.

The court confirmed that the defendant is guilty under s18 if it can be shown that he intended serious injury.

The defendant switched price tickets, intending to pay a lower amount.

 This was an appropriation even if he did not get to the checkout, as it is the owners right to price their own goods.

Students read exam papers before the exam took place, then put them back. As information is not 'property' this was not theft.

(Beware: there are other offences that may be committed, just not the crime of theft!)

The defendant took cinema films home to illegally copy them, then returned them before he was caught out.

This act is legal but is not theft, as the films had already been returned so there was no intent to permanently deprive. 

The defendant went behind the counter in a shop, to look through drawers to see if there was anything to steal.

He was a trespasser at that point as he was in a part of the building he had no permission to be in. As he had the intent to steal, this was burglary.

The defendant had an epileptic seicure, during which he caused the victim serious injury.

 He was found not guilty by reason of insanity as epilepsy may be considered a 'disease of the mind'.

The defendant claimed to have committed driving offences due to automatism as he was 'driving without awareness'.

However, the court rejected this defence, as his actions were not totally involuntary as he was still driving the car.

The judge gave examples of what would have ben considered automatism, including the theoretical example of a swarm of bees flying in the car, which would cause the driver to act involuntary.

A drunk person refused to pay the taxi fare when he got to his destination (a night club), so he was driven to a police station, where he got out and ran off.

He argued that he hadn't 'made off' from his destination, which was the night club.

His appeal was rejected.