OCR A-Level Law - Criminal Law cases
Get a hint
R v Raheem Ul Nasir>>> Example of Aggravating Factor - victims were Asian
R v Ex Parte Brownlow>>> Legality of police and wider background checks questioned
R v Mason>>> Legality of police and wider background checks - inquiry confirmed by Court of
Appeal
R v Ponting>>> Juries
Jury refusing to convict despite evidence
R v Randle and Pottle>>> Juries
Jury failing to convict the defendants despite pleading guilty; 25-year difference between crime
and trial
R v Young>>> Juries
Jury not giving a reason for their decision; used a Ouija board
Sander v UK>>> Juries
Jury failed to be unbiased; jurors made racist jokes about the defendant, but the case was allowed
to continue
R v Taylor and Taylor>>> Juries
Jury was influenced by media coverage of the case; appeal was allowed
Hill v Baxter>>> If there is no control, there is no actus reus; actus reus must be voluntary
Leicester v Pearson>>> Shunt involved - no actus reus, as the force involved was involuntary
R v Larsonneur>>> Had travelled on an expired visa to Ireland; state of affairs crime
R v Winzar>>> Arrested for being drunk (disorderly) on the highway; state of affairs crime
R v Pittwood>>> Duty of Care
,Failure to fulfil contractual duty, causing a collision
R v Stone and Dobinson>>> Duty of Care
Failure to look after sister who was living with them; voluntary assumption of responsibility
R v Dytham>>> Duty of Care
Defendant was a police officer on duty; ignored an ongoing fight and announced that he was
going off-duty; public duty
R v Gibbins and Proctor>>> Duty of Care
A 7-year-old girl died of starvation after her parents failed to feed her; duty through relationship
R v Miller>>> Duty of Care
Defendant falls asleep and sets mattress on fire, causing the building to burn and creating a
dangerous situation
R v White>>> Factual Causation
No factual cause of the consequence - mother's drink was poisoned, but she died of a heart attack
R v Pagett>>> Factual Causation
Factual cause of the consequence - Pagett endangered his girlfriend by dragging her into the line
of fire/dangerous situation
R v Kimsey>>> Factual Causation
Defendant's encouraging during the race for her to go faster counts as a significant contribution
towards her death
R v Hughes>>> Factual Causation
Defendant was originally convicted for the death of the victim, as the defendant should not have
been on the road to cause the collision. However, this was overturned, as it was later argued that
it could have happened with anyone, including someone who had a license
R v Benge>>> Factual Causation
Failure to act/negligence of others - defendant did not lay the new tracks in time and a train
crashed, argued that the flagman had not gone far enough up the track
R v Cheshire>>> Factual Causation/Novus Actus Interveniens
, The cause of death was not independent of the original act (third parties) - defendant's shooting
was the cause of the outcome, despite the operation
R v Jordan>>> Novus Actus Interveniens
Medical treatment was potent in causing the outcome, as the cause of his death was a result of
the poor treatment (third parties) - made the situation worse
R v Malcherek>>> Novus Actus Interveniens
Doctor switching off life support does not break the chain (third party) - situation did not get any
worse, patient was brain dead and was not recovering (arguably already dead)
R v Roberts>>> Novus Actus Interveniens
Victim's own act of jumping from the car after being assaulted by the driver broke the chain of
causation, as the victim's act was reasonably forseeable
R v Williams>>> Novus Actus Interveniens
Victim's own act of jumping from the car after believing he was going to be robbed was not
foreseeable; it was deemed "daft"
R v Blaue>>> Thin Skull Rule
Personal characteristics that render the victim more susceptible to the defendant's acts are
immaterial; refusal to accept a blood transfusion was irrelevant, the defendant was still
responsible for the death
R v Mohan>>> Direct Intention
The defendant had a direct intention for the result to occur
R v Moloney>>> Direct Intention
There was not "a true desire to bring about the consequence"
Chandler v DPP>>> Intention
Motive is irrelevant if the intention is present - broke into military base to protest against it
R v Woollin>>> Indirect Intention
The defendant foresaw that the consequence of his act was virtually certain
R v Hancock and Shankland>>> Intention
Get a hint
R v Raheem Ul Nasir>>> Example of Aggravating Factor - victims were Asian
R v Ex Parte Brownlow>>> Legality of police and wider background checks questioned
R v Mason>>> Legality of police and wider background checks - inquiry confirmed by Court of
Appeal
R v Ponting>>> Juries
Jury refusing to convict despite evidence
R v Randle and Pottle>>> Juries
Jury failing to convict the defendants despite pleading guilty; 25-year difference between crime
and trial
R v Young>>> Juries
Jury not giving a reason for their decision; used a Ouija board
Sander v UK>>> Juries
Jury failed to be unbiased; jurors made racist jokes about the defendant, but the case was allowed
to continue
R v Taylor and Taylor>>> Juries
Jury was influenced by media coverage of the case; appeal was allowed
Hill v Baxter>>> If there is no control, there is no actus reus; actus reus must be voluntary
Leicester v Pearson>>> Shunt involved - no actus reus, as the force involved was involuntary
R v Larsonneur>>> Had travelled on an expired visa to Ireland; state of affairs crime
R v Winzar>>> Arrested for being drunk (disorderly) on the highway; state of affairs crime
R v Pittwood>>> Duty of Care
,Failure to fulfil contractual duty, causing a collision
R v Stone and Dobinson>>> Duty of Care
Failure to look after sister who was living with them; voluntary assumption of responsibility
R v Dytham>>> Duty of Care
Defendant was a police officer on duty; ignored an ongoing fight and announced that he was
going off-duty; public duty
R v Gibbins and Proctor>>> Duty of Care
A 7-year-old girl died of starvation after her parents failed to feed her; duty through relationship
R v Miller>>> Duty of Care
Defendant falls asleep and sets mattress on fire, causing the building to burn and creating a
dangerous situation
R v White>>> Factual Causation
No factual cause of the consequence - mother's drink was poisoned, but she died of a heart attack
R v Pagett>>> Factual Causation
Factual cause of the consequence - Pagett endangered his girlfriend by dragging her into the line
of fire/dangerous situation
R v Kimsey>>> Factual Causation
Defendant's encouraging during the race for her to go faster counts as a significant contribution
towards her death
R v Hughes>>> Factual Causation
Defendant was originally convicted for the death of the victim, as the defendant should not have
been on the road to cause the collision. However, this was overturned, as it was later argued that
it could have happened with anyone, including someone who had a license
R v Benge>>> Factual Causation
Failure to act/negligence of others - defendant did not lay the new tracks in time and a train
crashed, argued that the flagman had not gone far enough up the track
R v Cheshire>>> Factual Causation/Novus Actus Interveniens
, The cause of death was not independent of the original act (third parties) - defendant's shooting
was the cause of the outcome, despite the operation
R v Jordan>>> Novus Actus Interveniens
Medical treatment was potent in causing the outcome, as the cause of his death was a result of
the poor treatment (third parties) - made the situation worse
R v Malcherek>>> Novus Actus Interveniens
Doctor switching off life support does not break the chain (third party) - situation did not get any
worse, patient was brain dead and was not recovering (arguably already dead)
R v Roberts>>> Novus Actus Interveniens
Victim's own act of jumping from the car after being assaulted by the driver broke the chain of
causation, as the victim's act was reasonably forseeable
R v Williams>>> Novus Actus Interveniens
Victim's own act of jumping from the car after believing he was going to be robbed was not
foreseeable; it was deemed "daft"
R v Blaue>>> Thin Skull Rule
Personal characteristics that render the victim more susceptible to the defendant's acts are
immaterial; refusal to accept a blood transfusion was irrelevant, the defendant was still
responsible for the death
R v Mohan>>> Direct Intention
The defendant had a direct intention for the result to occur
R v Moloney>>> Direct Intention
There was not "a true desire to bring about the consequence"
Chandler v DPP>>> Intention
Motive is irrelevant if the intention is present - broke into military base to protest against it
R v Woollin>>> Indirect Intention
The defendant foresaw that the consequence of his act was virtually certain
R v Hancock and Shankland>>> Intention
