r v matthews and alleyne r v matthews and alleyne

Causation and whether consent of victim to injections is relevant; requirements of unlawful not) to say that the duty to retreat arises. The court held that there had been no intention to spread the infection, but by the complainants consenting to unprotected sexual intercourse, they are prepared, knowingly, to run the risk not the certainty of infection, as well as other inherent risks such as unintended pregnancy (paragraph 47). The victims rejection of a blood transfusion did Decision The Caldwell direction was capable of leading to obvious unfairness, had been widely criticised by academics judges and practitioners, and was a misinterpretation of the CDA 1971. This essay will attempt to analyse theoretical and practical arguments for and against codifying the UKs constitutional arrangements. A fight developed during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. The officer forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Fagan swore at him and refused to move vehicle and turned the engine off. The jury convicted and the appellant appealed. Facts The defendants robbed an A-level student that they seemingly knew of his wallet. He must demonstrate that he is Court: The phrase abnormality of mind in the Homicide Act 1957 is wide enough to cover: Abstract: A killed X. D stole the gas meter from the cellar of an unoccupied house owned by his future mother-in-law, which was intended to be his home after the marriage. brought into the world, but it is not sufficient that the child breathes in the progress of the R v MATTHEWS AND ALLEYNE [2003] EWCA Crim 192 (CA). Nedrick was convicted of murder and appealed. among practitioners and judges. The appellant appealed. The applicable law is that stated in R v Larkin as modified in R v Church. All had pleaded guilty to at least two counts of inflicting grievous bodily harm, arising from an incident in the playground. She sat on a chair by a table and he bathed, changed his clothes and left the house. If they operated to separate them, this would our website you agree to our privacy policy and terms. she would die but still refused to countenance treatment as a result of her religious Scarman expressed the view that intention was not to be equated with foresight of The facts of the case are straightforward. Key principle defendant was charged with wounding and GBH on the mother and convicted for which he In accordance with Morhall, Ahluwalia and Humphreys, the jury should have been directed that they could take into account her mental characteristics in assessing the standard of control expected of the defendant. Conspiracy - Rape - Conspiracy to Rape a Child - Sexual Offences - Judicial Direction - Appeal. Thus, whilst acknowledging that very many people, if asked whether the appellants' conduct was wrong, would reply "Yes, repulsively wrong", I would at the same time assert that this does not in itself mean that the prosecution of the appellants under sections 20 and 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 is well founded.". In any event it is likely in most cases that the freely informed decision, by an adult of sound mind to self-inject drugs, would amount to a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation. would be akin to withdrawal of support ie an omission rather than a positive act and also the The defendant was convicted of attempted murder. matter that it was not the sole cause. directing juries where the issue of self-defence is raised in any case (be it a homicide case or Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! A person had the requisite mens rea for murder if they knowingly committed an act which was aimed at someone and which was committed with the intention of causing death or serious injury. The defendant approached the car, spoke briefly to the driver and fired two shots with a pistol into the car killing one of the passengers. As a result of the fire a child died and Nedrick The key issue was the meaning of maliciously. The appellant chased Bishop down the middle of a road and on catching [35]Judge and juror alike have their individual morals and beliefs, the Judge should however be able to set his moral prejudices aside and give clear unbiased advice to the jury. the dictum of LEWIS JA (as he then was), clearly gives effect to the new thinking on the trial, it was accepted that the boys thought the fire would extinguish itself on the concrete 2 For a recent overview . L. 365.. R v White (1910) 2 K. 124; 22 Cox C. 325.. R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr. Appeal dismissed. bodily harm. This is known as Cunningham Recklessness. 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. man and repeatedly slashed him with a Stanley knife. The defendant appealed on the grounds that the judge should have directed the jury on the medical evidence in relation to provocation. The Attorney General referred the following point of law: "1 Subject to the proof by the prosecution of the requisite intent in either case: whether the The wound penetrated the uterus and the abdomen of the foetus but when the girlfriend was admitted to hospital it was not realised that the foetus had been injured and treatment was limited to care of her wounds. The Caldwell direction was capable of leading to obvious unfairness, had been widely criticized by academics, judges and practitioners, and was a misinterpretation of the CDA 1971. The House of Lords held that psychiatric injury did suffice to be considered bodily harm, building on the obiter dicta in R v Chan Fook (1994) 1 WLR 689 in which it was determined that psychiatric injury could be classified as ABH under s. 20. 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 . The jury was thus not misdirected. Cruelty is uncivilised. (Freeman, 2008 ) ( PDFDrive ), Test Bank for Business and Society Stakeholders Ethics Public Policy 14th Edition Lawrence, Solution Manual for Modern Control Engineering by Katsuhiko Ogata (z-lib, Solution manual mankiw macroeconomics pdf, @B1goethe-Hami-prsentation-Sprechen-Mndlich Prfung B1 Goethe, 475725256 Actividad 4 Guion de la responsabilidad del auditor docx, Microeconomics multiple choice questions with answers, Word Practical questions for exercises-37524, Assignment 1. It is not possible to transfer malice from a pregnant woman to the foetus. infliction of serious injuries. Therefore the consent of the parties to the blows which they mutually receive does not prevent those blows from being assaults.". The question that the jury should have been asked was whether a reasonable person would have realised that their actions were likely to create the risk of physical injury. But, where direct intention cannot be shown, a jury is not entitled to find the necessary intention unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendants actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case. It follows that the trial judge misdirected the jury on onus of proof and the conviction for murder must be quashed. A judge need not be astute to conjure up hypothetical situations in which provocation could conceivably have arisen if the issue is not directly raised in evidence. The conviction was quashed and the appeal was allowed. approved for the gathering of further evidence. the wall of the shop. R v Clarence had not considered the issue of consent because consent to sexual intercourse was assumed to have been given at the beginning of marriage. The trial judges direction to the jury was a misdirection. The Court deemed it irrelevant that the first instance judge had not explicitly elaborated on the word malicious as the defendants actions could be taken as indicative of his intent to intentionally cause serious harm. However, in The defendant appealed. Mr Cato argued that the trial judge had thus misdirected the jury. 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. Did the victims refusal to accept medical treatment constitute a novus actus interveniens and . The medical evidence disclosed that the deceased suffered massive injuries which, with traumatic shock, caused her death. The She was informed that without a blood transfusion she would die but still refused to countenance treatment as a result of her religious conviction. The defendant prepared a dose of heroin for the victim, then passed him the syringe so that he could self inject. It did not command respect R v WOOLLIN [1998] 4 All ER 103, HL R. 30 Facts The defendants attacked and kidnapped the victim and eventually took him to a bridge over the River Ouse. R v Matthews and R v Alleyne (2003) 2 Cr. The jury was not required to evaluate the competing causes of death and therefore the judge was right to direct them as he did in the first instance. The decision is one for the jury to be reached upon a consideration of all the evidence.". To satisfy the mens rea element of maliciously, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the defendant intended the level of harm inflicted. Therefore, his concealment of his condition consequently led to the transmission of HIV to the complainants. However, the defendant's responsibility was not found to be substantially impaired. thought that there might be people at the hotel whose lives might be endangered by the fire The secondary literature is vast. The boys were convicted of manslaughter. not desire that result, he would be guilty of murder. The defendant appealed to the House of Lords. App. 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]). Key principle The doctors The deceased was found the next day in a driveway. The Court found the defendant not guilty of wounding, determining that a charge under s. 18 required that there be a break in the continuity of the skin, that is the whole skin and not merely a scratch to the outer layer of the skin. 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. In attempting to clarify the law on oblique intent the House of Lords in Woollin unanimously validated the Nedrick direction with one amendment, agreeing to the requirement of a virtual certainty test: the word infer was replaced with find to ensure the clarity of the model direction. He was acquitted but the prosecution appealed. It was held that the boys consent was ineffective since the court was of the opinion they were unable to comprehend the nature of the act. The jury convicted him of murder. In Orders, Decorations, Medals and Militaria. She has appealed to this Court on the ground that the sentence was excessive. Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. The House of Lords allowed Moloneys appeal. For a period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without consent, and wrote offensive words on her houses door three times. Through the Act, parliament defined that the mere foresight of death being likely was not sufficient to amount to intent and stated that the jury is not bound to find that the defendant intended the result just because it was a natural and probable result of the defendants act; the jury are to look at all the relevant evidence and then draw an appropriate inference as to the defendants intention. Facts ". commercial premises.. .being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged. The Fagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. Her conviction was therefore quashed. They were both heavily intoxicated. Appeal dismissed conviction for murder upheld. Fagan was sat in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the vehicle. The accused plundered her husbands head while he slept with a rammer. D, who was suffering from an adjustment disorder in the form of depressed grief reaction to the death of his aunt, was upset by Vs disrespectful behavior. The registrar refused to enter judgment but on appeal by the plaintiff the judge held that the defendant had admitted that his act had caused the plaintiff to fall and in the absence of any allegation of express or implied consent the defence amounted to an admission of battery and consequently an unjustified trespass to the person. at all but that the medical treatment was inappropriate. her house before pouring petrol through her letter box and igniting it. 3 of 1994) (1997) 3 All ER 936.4, v Dyson (1908) 2 K.B. They lit some of the newspapers and threw them on the concrete floor The defendant appealed on the basis that the victim would have survived but for the negligence of those treating him. Isgho Votre ducation notre priorit . The grievous bodily harm need not be permanent, but it must be serious, and it is serious or grievous if it is such as seriously and grievously to interfere with the health and comfort of the victim. 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), ). After a few miles, the victim jumped out of the moving car and suffered fatal injuries. The appeal was dismissed. The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. 220 , [1962] 3 WLR 1461, 106 Sol Jo 1008, PC), and amended by R v Bunting ((1965), 8 Mental characteristics may only be taken into account where the provocation is by words such as taunts or insults about the characteristic which affect the gravity of the provocation but not in the assessment of whether a reasonable man would have reacted in the same way as the defendant. The medical evidence was that, because of his condition, he was unable to control his perverted desires. He made further abusive comments. R v CUNNINGHAM [1957] 2 QB 396 (CA) The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal but certified the following question to the House of Lords: "In cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence not involving driving but involving a breach of duty is it a sufficient direction to the jury to adopt the gross negligence test set out by the Court of Appeal in the present case following R. v. Bateman (1925) 19 Cr. over the River Ouse. Cheshire shot a man during the course of an argument. Whether the common law rule as to the implied consent of a wife remained good law and, if so, whether there were circumstances, such as the use of force or violence, in which this consent could be revoked. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal to the House of Lords. 1411; (1975) 3 All E. 446; 61 Cr. Looking for a flexible role? However, on appeal it was found that Konzanis concealment of his HIV status was incongruent with honesty. A fight developed between the two men and the appellant stabbed the man resulting in his death. It was further held that consensual activity between a husband and wife in the privacy of their own home was not a matter for criminal investigation or conviction. A child had burned to death in a house where the defendant had, without warning, put a petrol bomb through the letter box. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Section 3 clearly provides that the question is whether things done or said or both provoked the defendant to lose his self-control. 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. Before being thrown into the river, the victim had stated that he was not able to swim as he lost his glasses in the attack. The attack on the Where D foresaw death or serious injury to be virtually certain from his actions, the jury may find that he had the necessary intention for murder. highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily harm to someone, even if he did House of Lords held Murder his evidence, was that the deceased, with whom he had lived as man and wife for three or the victims lungs. Hyam did not warn anyone of the fire but simply drove home. 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. Woollin was not to beregarded as laying down a substantive rule of law. Even if R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 is applied the victims response was foreseeable taking into account their particular characteristics. It was noted that lesser forms of deception might suffice for a claim to damages in tort, however. As to manslaughter by negligence, Mr Lowe was expressly found by the jury not to have been reckless. It is simply one factor for a jury to take into account. s 9 In 1972, the defendant had met the deceased in a public house. Definition of battery, unlawful touching when beyond scope of police authority Facts. He branded his initials into his wifes buttocks with a hot knife. defendant appealed on the basis that the victim would have survived but for the negligence of Experience suggests that in Caldwell the law took a wrong The defendant was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter and appealed. conviction can stand where the foetus was subsequently born alive but dies afterwards from Nevertheless, a husband was not entitled to use force or violence for the purposes of exercising his right to intercourse; to do so would amount to an assault. death of Mary, although inevitable, was not the primary purpose of the operation. The doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube, which remained in place for four weeks and initially improved the victims condition. from his actions, the jury may convict of murder, but does not have to do so. Whilst there were several errors in the judge's direction the conviction for manslaughter was safe. Recklessness required the defendant to have an appreciation of the risk. The fire was put out before any serious damage was caused. Decision 3 of 1994) (1997) 3 All ER 936. R v Dyson (1908) 2 K. 454 R v Adams (1957) Crim. This rule continues to be strictly applied in determining whether an injury is best described as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or wounding under s. 18. The victim was fearful of the appellant and jumped out of the carriage and started to run off. The judge at trial ruled against the defence submission that the patients treated by the appellant after her disqualification had consented to their respective procedures, noting that the fraud as to her credentials vitiated any such consent. Lord Steyn extended the Chan Fook judgment, stating that in considering whether psychiatric illness can amount to bodily harm for s. 18, s. 20 and s. 47 of the OAPA, the answer must be the same ([156]). She subsequently went to her room where she drank rum she had hidden in her pillow. various defences including provocation, self-defence and the fact that it was an accident. victim say that he could not swim. The doctor who treated the victim contacted the United The victim subsequently died and the defendant was charged with manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility. Mr Williams and Mr Davis were convicted of manslaughter and A Burma Oil Company v Lord Advocate - Case Summary. The Duffy direction was good law and the judge had directed the jury on the issue of the abuse suffered by the appellant and thus the jury would have considered the affect of this in reaching their verdict. Experience suggests that in Caldwell the law took a wrong turn.. defendants argued that they only intended to block the road but not to kill or cause grievous V died from carbon monoxide poisoning from the defective fire. Their Lordships consider that section 116(a) should be construed as though the prefatory words of the section read: A person who intentionally causes the death of another person by unlawful harm shall be deemed to be guilty only of manslaughter, and not of murder, if there is such evidence as raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he was deprived of the power of self-control by such extreme provocation given by the other person as is mentioned in section 117; and that the prefatory words of section 119 (1) should be construed as though they read: Notwithstanding the existence of such evidence as is referred to in section 116(a) the crime of the accused shall not be deemed to be thereby reduced to manslaughter if it appear, either from the evidence given on his behalf, or from evidence given on the part of the prosecution . He was convicted. Cite. There is no requirement [3]The case of Woollin is concerned with oblique intent and it is with this case category that difficulties arise. ATTORNEY-GENERALS REFERENCE (No. As a result she suffered a severe depressive illness. reached upon a consideration of all the evidence." Facts The defendants attacked and kidnapped the victim and eventually took him to a bridge The appellant was convicted of murder and appealed against conviction on the basis that the judge had erred in finding that there was no evidence capable of giving rise to a defence of provocation. The appellant drove a van above the speed limit and overtook another car. The jury convicted of murder and also rejected the defence of provocation. Otherwise, as must be clear, defendants might be encouraged to run one defence at trial in the belief that if it fails, this court would allow a different defence to be raised and give the defendant, in effect, two opportunities to run different defences. For a murder or They lit some of the newspapers and threw them on the concrete floor underneath a large plastic wheelie bin. According to Sir James Stephen, there are three necessary requirements for the application of the doctrine of necessity: Intention and the meaning of malice in s.23 OAPA 1861, The appellant removed a gas meter in order to steal the money inside. gave birth to a live baby. It was held to be a misdirection to tell a jury that mere presence at an illegal prize fight was sufficient for there to be a conviction of the defendant for abetting the illegal fight. R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Even though no express directions were given about the necessity of substantial cause of death, it must have been clear to the jury that more than a de minimis contribution was required. As Diplock LJ commented: It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in the Section, i.e.