r v matthews and alleyne r v matthews and alleyne

Whilst there were several errors in the judge's direction the conviction for manslaughter was safe. The appellant, a registered dentist, had her licence to practice suspended by the General Dental Council in 1996 but continued to treat patients, whom she did not inform of the suspension. The trial judge directed the jury that if the defendant knew it was highly probable that the act would result in serious bodily harm to someone, even if he did not desire that result, he would be guilty of murder. drunkenly set fire to the hotel. The defendant's conviction was upheld. The appellant and Edward Escott were both vagrants and drug addicts. On this basis, the appellant induced the women to allow him to demonstrate how to carry out a self-examination, which required that the victims remove their clothes and allow the appellant to feel their breasts. She was charged with assaulting a police office in the course of his duty. Hyam was tried for murder. warning anyone in the house then drove home. The appeal on the grounds of provocation was therefore unsuccessful. The defendants were miners striking who threw a concrete block from a bridge onto the Nonetheless the boys were convicted and the Court of Appeal, basing itself on Caldwell, affirmed the conviction because the boys gave no thought to a risk of damaging the buildings which would have been obvious to any reasonable adult. The point from which I invite your Lordships to depart is simply this, that the state should interfere with the rights of an individual to live his or her life as he or she may choose no more than is necessary to ensure a proper balance between the special interests of the individual and the general interests of the individuals who together comprise the populace at large. The consent to risk provided a defence under s 20, resulting in the conviction being quashed. Consideration was given, inter alia, as to whether the deceaseds alleged conduct in punching the defendant had amounted to provocative conduct so that the judge should have directed the jury as to provocation. They were both alcoholics and he had a history of violence towards her for which he had spent time in prison. and malicious administration of noxious thing under s. 23 of the Offences against the WIR 276). The doctor who treated the victim contacted the United States Air Force authorities as he took a different view as to the cause of death. The defendant fired an airgun with pellets out of his flat window. It was severely criticized by academic lawyers of distinction. were convicted and the Court of Appeal, basing itself on Caldwell, affirmed the conviction A key issue in this case was whether and under what circumstances could a court listen to Facts The 11 and 12 year old defendants were messing around in the early hours with some bundles of old newspapers which they had found in the back yard of the Co-op store in Newport Pagnell. The appeal was dismissed. the defence had been raised. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REFERENCE (No. The removal of the For a murder or manslaughter conviction, a child must be killed after it has been fully delivered alive from the mothers body. App. It was held that prize fighting in public was unlawful, notwithstanding the consent of the individuals involved. The defendant was a soldier who stabbed one of his comrades during a fight in an army barracks. The moral evaluation of a persons action concerns the intention, and actions although innocent may be immoral because of the persons motive. intent to cause harm or was reckless as to the possibility of causing foreseeable harm. The appellant peered into a railway carriage looking for the victim. Accordingly, we reject Mr. McHale's third submission. The five appellants were convicted on various counts of ABH and wounding a under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution did not frame the case in relation to the physical injuries sustained from him jumping out of the windows (presumably assuming his actions may amount to a novus actus interveniens). robbery after the jury accepted that they robbed the victim (as pre-planned) and threatened Where consensual activity has taken place in the privacy of ones home, and is has not serious or extreme in nature, a defence of consent is valid against s 47 of the Act and it is not a proper matter for criminal investigation. The sturdy submission is made that an Englishman is not bound to run away when threatened, The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction of ABH under s.47 OAPA 1861 and certified a point of law to the House of Lords as to whether it was necessary under s.20 to establish that the defendant intended or was reckless as to the infliction of GBH or whether it was sufficient that the defendant foresaw some harm. There was no requirement that the unlawful act was directed at the victims nor that it was directed at a person. The actus reus for murder is the unlawful killing of a human being caused by an act or omission of the defendant. Leave was him punched him and head butted him. The fire spread to the first bin, then to the second and then to the guttering and fascia board on the overhanging eave. The complainants could not have given proper consent as they were not honestly informed. approved for the gathering of further evidence. The defendant went after man and repeatedly slashed him with a Stanley knife. The trial judge had gone further than the present law allowed in redrafting the Nedrick/Woollin direction on virtual certainty, but on the facts there was an irresistible inference or finding of intention to kill once the jury were sure that Ds appreciated the virtual certainty of Vs death from their acts and had no intentions of saving him. The jury convicted of murder and also rejected the defence of provocation. A key issue in this case was whether the accuseds acts of shooting the victim had caused the death or whether the chain of causation was broken by the negligent medical treatment that the victim had received following being injured by the shooting. It was held that the police officer was acting outside the scope of his powers as he had no power to arrest the woman in that situation and therefore, was acting outside of the scope of his duties as a police officer. of course, well known to us all that for very many years it has been common form for judges In the event, the issue that the jury had to decide was the defendants intention when he had hit the deceased. Case summary last updated at 15/01/2020 07:06 by the As a result, the child died. but later re-opened his wounds in what was thought to be a suicide and died two days after 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. Where there was no such evidence, but merely the speculative possibility that there had been an act of provocation, it was wrong for the judge to direct the jury to consider provocation. He was convicted of maliciously administering a noxious substance so as to endanger life under s.23 OAPA 1861. Experience suggests that in Caldwell the law took a wrong turn.. injuries inflicted whilst in the womb. Moloney (ie, was death or grievous bodily harm a natural consequence of what was done, and The appellant interrogated the student during which he struck him several times. The appeal was dismissed. Whether the The defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend in the face, abdomen and back when she was 22-24 weeks pregnant. Does the defendant need to have foreseen the result? 421 confirmed that an unborn foetus is not capable of being murdered, but a manslaughter his evidence, was that the deceased, with whom he had lived as man and wife for three or The victim drowned. The prosecution evidence at the defendants trial that year for murder was that the injuries sustained by the deceased were indicative of a sustained sexual assault and that kicks had most likely been used to inflict the wounds and fractures suffered by the deceased prior to her death. defence. obligation which only arises in homicide cases. The decision was appealed. A fight developed during which the appellant knocked her unconscious. The provisions of s 3 of the 1957 Act should be construed with proper regard to human frailty in answering the essential jury question. the foreseeable range of events particularly given the intoxicated state he was in at the The fire was put out before any serious damage was caused. He called her a whore and told her to get out or he would kill her. R v G and F. 334 words (1 pages) Case Summary. A childs certain and imminent death due meningitis was accelerated by the childs fathers infliction of serious injuries, Accelerating death is enough for the law to consider someone as causing death. Things got out of hand and the appellant went and grabbed his shot gun and what he believed to be blank cartridges. Likewise, if there is no evidence to support diminished responsibility at the time of the trial, this court would view any wholly retrospective medical evidence obtained long after the trial with considerable scepticism.". L. 594 CA.. Re A (Conjoined Twins) (2000) 4 All E. 961 R v Cunningham (1957) 2 Q 396. R v Caldwell (1981) 1 All E. 96 R v G and R [2003] UKHL 50 (overrulling Caldwell) Hyam v DPP [1975] A. He said he discovered that she had been drinking that day and had The defendant Nedrick held a grudge against a woman. How likely is the adverse effect to occur, does it have to be virtually certain to occur or does it have to be merely probable? Both appeals were dismissed. The CCRC referred the case to the CA, however, before the hearing of the appeal, the Privy Council decision in A-G for Jersey v Holley for was announced. The defendant tattooed two boys aged 12 and 13. The petrol station attendant, who unknown to the defendants had a pre-existing heart condition suffered a heart attack and died. However, the case of Hyam is similar to Nedrick, but with a different outcome and has not been overruled by the House of Lords. The question for the court was whether the complainants were consenting to the risk of infection with HIV when they consented to sexual intercourse with defendant. Whether words alone could constitute an assault and the temporal element of fear of immediate violence. Another friend pulled the appellant off Bishop and held him back. Unhappy with this decision, the defendant proceeded to harass the victim over several months, making repeated phone calls, delivering hate mail, appearing unexpectedly, harassing her neighbours, inter alia, causing her to sustain psychiatric injury (severe depression). The defendants were charged with damaging by fire commercial premises . Facts. A mother strangled her newborn baby, and was charged with the murder. There were two bullets in the chamber but neither were opposite the barrel.