Criminal Law- AR and MR loose ends
R v Larsonneur
French citizen who was required to leave the Uk, she went to Ireland however she was deported and brought back by the irish police she was then charged with being an illegal alien to whom leave to land in the Uk had been refused she was convicted even though she had no personal freedom of action. courts said he fcircumstance of compulsion that brought about her return was immaterial
Winzar
D is brought into the hospital on a stretcher, the hospital staff realise he is quite drunk and they ask him to leave, he was later seen slumped on a seat and the police were called, the police removed him and charged him with being drunk on a high way. the courts that said that all that needed to be proved to show guilt was that D was drunkkk in a public place. how he came to be there is irrelevant
what are the rules around transferred malice
if D with the mens rea for a particular crime, causes the actus reus of the same crime, he is guilty, even though the result, is in some respects, an unintended one.
latimer
D had a fight in a pub with X he took off his belt and aimed a blow at X, but the belt actually hit V who was standing near by and wounded her quite serverly. D was found guilty of unlawfully and maliciously wounding the person, the court said he had the MR for that crime and cause the Ar of that same crime, although he did not expect what would happen, the law still holds him guilty.
Pembliton
D was in a fight outside a public house and threw a stone at the people he was fighting with but missed and instead smashed a window, the court said transfered maice did not apply here as the AR which was causing criminal damage was different from the MR, so this does not apply
A-Gs reference (no3 of 1994)
D was the BF of a woman who was pregnant, he had an arguement with her and stabbed her in the face, back and the abdomin, he intented to harm the girlfriend, however the baby was very premature, baby only lived for just over 100 days but then died, sentenced for 4 years for GBH on the woman, however when the baby died he was convicted of murder, he pleaded not guilty. courts decision was whether they could find him guilty of murder, decided that is was not possible to apply the notion of transferred malice here, because we would need a double transfer, first from the mother to the feotus (feotus is not protected by the law of murder), then from the feotus from the child, the court held this isnt possible, additionally what he intended to happen to the first person did not happen to the second
what are the rules around coincidence
in order to be liable for a criminal offence D must possess the ecessary MR at the time he commits the AR.
Fagan
miller
Series of acts?
thabo Meli v R
Church
Le brun