r v matthews and alleyne

Whist the victim was admitted to hospital she required medical treatment which precluded accepting a blood transfusion. swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire, HD6 2AG. 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. underneath a large plastic wheelie bin. The defendant appealed to Key principle Medical evidence was such that the mother died from a sustained attack rather than from a fall. Maliciously in this context does not have its ordinary everyday meaning of wickedly; it means intentionally or recklessly. The form of recklessness in question is subjective, ie foresight of consequences. My opinion in this case is, that the child had breathed; but I cannot take upon myself to say that it was wholly born alive.. [33]The Judiciary is affected by moral standards and it would be impossible to prevent morality from entering the judicial process[34]. certainty of Vs death from their acts and had no intentions of saving him. His conviction for manslaughter was upheld. The case was appealed by the appellant on the basis of this instruction to the jury in addition to arguing for a lack of mens rea to cause harm. Key principle From 1981-2003, objective recklessness was applied to many offences, but the If the defendants had knowledge that the victim had a heart condition then they may have been cognisant of the fact that their actions were likely to create a risk of physical harm. It should have been on the basis that the jury could not find the necessary intent unless . suffering mental illness. The first case to examine is DPP v. Smith where the House of Lords ruled that intention can be established if a person intended the natural and probable consequence of his actions. The baby suffered a fractured skull and died. This is necessarily a question of degree and an attempt to specify that degree more closely is I think likely to achieve only a spurious precision. What I do say is that these are questions of private morality; that the standards by which they fall to be judged are not those of the criminal law; and that if these standards are to be upheld the individual must enforce them upon himself according to his own moral standards, or have them enforced against him by moral pressures exerted by whatever religious or other community to whose ethical ideals he responds. Feelings of fear and panic are emotions rather than an injury and without medical evidence to support recognised psychiatric condition a conviction for ABH could not stand. A number of persons made a planned attack on V. Many of the attackers were armed with blunt instruments. The victim was intolerant to As a result, the child died. The judge should have directed the jury on provocation. that the foetus be classed as a human being provided causation was proved. additional evidence. He should only direct the jury on provocation if there is evidence before the court which, if believed, might be taken by a reasonable jury to support this defence. This caused the victim to suffer significant mental distress. The The defendants evidence at trial, which included an account which he had not previously advanced in interview, was that he had met the deceased, that they had gone together and had engaged in sexual activity, but that he had had trouble achieving an erection. s 9 In 1972, the defendant had met the deceased in a public house. The appellant waved a razor about intending to frighten his mistress's lover. He admitted to starting the fire but stated that he only wanted to frighten the owner of the house. It follows that that the jury must have used the defendants statements to the police against other defendants, despite the judges direction to the contrary. The boys had consented to the tattoo. robbery after the jury accepted that they robbed the victim (as pre-planned) and threatened There were six appellants to the appeal a conviction under s 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. something which he has no business to do and perfectly well knows it (p). gave birth to a live baby. On the night of the killing he had threatened to hit her with an iron and told her that he would beat her the next day if she did not provide him with money. Section 20 requires an intention or reckless on the part of the defendant/appellant in their actions, which was found not to exist. The defendant was liable for assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. View examples of our professional work here. The appeal was allowed. medical evidence disclosed that the deceased suffered massive injuries which, with traumatic James did not want to use that defence and pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter on grounds of provocation. On the facts of this case the test was not met, therefore the defendant could not be convicted of murder. The trial judge directed the jury that if they were satisfied the defendant "must have realised and appreciated when he threw that child that there was a substantial risk that he would cause serious injury to it, then it would be open to you to find that he intended to cause injury to the child and you should convict him of murder." child had breathed; but I cannot take upon myself to say that it was wholly born alive.. As the court understands it, it is submitted that if the injury results in death then the accused cannot set up self-defence except on the basis that he had retreated before he resorted to violence. Did Hyam have the requisite intention to commit murder? [3]The case of Woollin is concerned with oblique intent and it is with this case category that difficulties arise. The issue in the case was whether the trial judge had erred in his instruction to the jury and what is the correct meaning of malice. After a short struggle with his girlfriend the defendant drove away and later gave himself up to the police. She was soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the mans actions and letters. Facts The 11 and 12 year old defendants were messing around in the early hours with some intention for the purposes of s of OAPA 1861. The two complainants were thrown into the air and landed on the ground, causing them serious injuries. He stated that he and the deceased had laughed together about that, that he had not felt humiliated, and that, at one stage, the deceased had become aggressive, saying that she wanted him to make it worth her while, had thrown something at him and had struck him a number of times. have used the defendants statements to the police against other defendants, despite the The appellant was convicted at trial, with the judge instructing the jury that for the Further, when criminal investigation or conviction is required where consensual activity between a couple occurs in the privacy of their own home. Nothing could be further from the truth. The defendant was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter and appealed. She went to the kitchen got a knife and sharpened it then returned to the living room. Subsequently the defendant was deemed guilty of an offence of wounding under s. 18. Foresight of the natural consequences of an act is no more than knife and stick in the car should not have been admitted. D was convicted. 1411; (1975) 3 All E. 446; 61 Cr. testified before a jury that a child can die during the delivery, thus the fact that a child They lit some of the newspapers and threw them on the concrete floor On Friday, 2 March 1962, LH got home about 7 pm and discovered the dead body of his grandmother lying on the floor. In the fire a child died. V was stabbed to death. Based on these failures, joint If so, the jury must go on to consider whether that breach of duty should be characterised as gross negligence and therefore as a crime. 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. He was electrocuted when he stepped onto a live rail. As no murder case before the court is identical, the need for flexibility is required in allowing judges to decide on which points of law the jury should be directed; as identified earlier the definition of intention still lacks clarity and if the definition was to be set rigidly in statute to give a clear meaning, the judges would still retain significant interpretive power. The judge declined to give a direction to the jury as to whether the boys were participated in rough horseplay with intent to injure. He called her a whore and told her to get out or he would kill her. The case of A-Gs Ref (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 WLR One issue which arose concerned the not be the sole or even main cause of death. R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) - Hodder Education Magazines landmarks in the common law R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) Ian Yule examines a case you can use in oblique-intent questions A Level Law Review Volume 10, 2014/ 2015 Issue 1 Murder A Level Law Review Criminal law General elements of criminal liability Twitter Linked In Facebook The defendant argued the man's actions in opening the wounds amounted to Nedrick was convicted of murder and 23. It was noted that lesser forms of deception might suffice for a claim to damages in tort, however. 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. He was convicted of murder but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and substituted a conviction for manslaughter. LH was the paramour of the appellant and shared a house at Barataria with his grandmother. A fight developed between the two men and the appellant stabbed the man resulting in his death. Once at the hospital, he received negligent medical treatment; the medics failed to diagnose a puncture to his lung. Appeal dismissed conviction for murder upheld. Whether words alone could constitute an assault and the temporal element of fear of immediate violence. Adjacent was another similar bin which was next to the wall of the shop. They pooled their money and brought 10 worth of heroin. In order to break the chain of causation, an event must The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by the three accused, but on further appeal to the Privy Council the appellant's case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to consider whether to admit fresh evidence relating to the possible defence of diminished responsibility based on the battered wife syndrome. the wall of the shop. Adjacent was another similar bin which was next to the wall of the shop. Key principle From 1981-2003, objective recklessness was applied to many offences, but the tide has turned and now since G and R the Caldwell test for recklessness should no longer be followed. Recklessness for the purposes of the Criminal The statute states 'whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence'. The broader issue in the case was what amounts to intention for the purposes of s.23 of OAPA 1861. therefore upheld. offended their sense of justice. privacy policy. The issue was whether the complainants had consented to rough and undisciplined horseplay and whether there had been intent to cause serious injury. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant's conviction for murder upheld. mens rea aimed at the mother could not be transferred to the foetus as it would constitute a However, in some cases, it will be almost impossible to find that intention did not exist. The law in Jersey and England & Wales is the same on this issue. (Lord Steyn dissenting). Three medical men [For] the prisoner inflicted grievous bodily harn by a voluntary act and intended to harm the victim and the victim has died as a result of that grievous bodily harm. reckless, ie doing an act which creates an obvious risk of the relevant harm and at that time He appealed contending the chain of causation Regina v Matthews; Regina v Alleyne: CACD 7 Feb 2003 The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, complaining that the judge had failed properly to direct the jury as to the required likelhood of death which might result from the act complained of, and turned a rule of evidence into a rule of law. CHIEF CONSTABLE OF AVON AND SOMERSET CONSTABULARY v SHIMMEN (1986) 84 Cr App R 7 (QBD), ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REFERENCE (No. deceased. He made further abusive comments. The defendant appealed on the grounds that in referring to 'substantial risk' the Sylvia Notts mocked the appellant's ability to satisfy her sexually and slapped his face. The House of Lords substantially agreed with the Nedrick guidelines with a minor modification. The foreseeability of the level of physical harm and subjective intent required for the crime of grievous bodily harm. was highly probable that serious bodily harm would occur as a result of his act was a The judge gave a direction based on Holley and the jury convicted. The court held that the stab wound was an operating cause of the victims death; it did not matter that it was not the sole cause. The boys were convicted of manslaughter. The injuries were inflicted during consensual homosexual sadomasochist activities. Karimi then disarmed him and stabbed him to death with the knife in a frenzied attack. It struck a taxi that was carrying a working miner and killed the driver. D argued that he did not carry a knife and was unaware that any of the group had one. A child is born only when the whole body is brought into the world, but it is not sufficient that the child breathes in the progress of the birth, as the child may die before the whole delivery takes place. Hyam then had become jealous of her ex-boyfriends new fiance Ms Booth. and the defendants were convicted of murder. This issue of intention resurfaced in 2003 in the case of Mathews and Alleyne. [ 1] The mens rea for murder is malice aforethought or intention. The jury convicted him of murder (which carries the death penalty in Hong Kong). The defendant, Mr Miller, had been the husband of the victim who, at the time of the alleged offence, had left the respondent and filed a petition for divorce on grounds of adultery. A key issue in this case was whether and under what circumstances could a court listen to She later that night sat and plotted of ways to take her husbands life, where she went to the yard and took the rammer, returned to the house, entered her husbands room and proceeded to smash his head with the rammer as he slept. Konzani was HIV positive and aware of his condition. twins' best interests. him punched him and head butted him. The victim was taken to receive medical attention, but whilst being carried to the As the court understands it, it is submitted The court distinguished a number of cases where sexual violence had been consented to but had found to be unlawful given its nature and subsequent harm caused to the participant. Equally, it must be said that the text books do not state the contrary either; and it is, Held: Lord Lane CJ considered whether a simple direction to the jury on intent to either kill or to do serious bodily harm was . The defendant was convicted of attempted murder. a positive act and so the test was not of whether the omission was reasonably foreseeable. 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. first instance found Jordan guilty. She returned later to find her husband asleep on the sofa. The nature of the act consented to, a breast examination, was so fundamentally different that it rendered any apparent consent entirely inoperative. jury that before the appellant could use force in self-defence he was required to retreat. Devlin J gave the classic definition of provocation as: The appellant poured petrol and caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set fire to him. The judge directed the jury that statements to the police could only be used against the maker of the statement, but Mr Williams argued that the evidence was too tenuous to go before the jury, and that his conviction was inconsistent with Mr Bobats acquittal. To satisfy the mens rea element of maliciously, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the defendant intended the level of harm inflicted. He was convicted of manslaughter and appealed on the basis that the jury should have been directed that his mistaken belief that the cartridges were blank should be taken into account in assessing whether the sober and reasonable man would have regarded his actions as dangerous. At her trial she raised the defence of diminished responsibility based on a personality disorder. The woman decided to walk away, but the police officer was intent on stopping her and in order to do so, grabbed her arm in order to prevent her from walking away. In the first case, Ms. Savage threw beer over her husbands ex-girlfriend in a bar. Thus, in cases where the skins remains intact, ABH or GBH are the only options for a charge. . Ruling of Stanley John J St Vncent The Grenadines, Ronald Dworkin-Lord Devlin and the Enforcement of Morals, Mens rea - Sedanenie - This is the work of a student and should not be used as your main study document, Worksheet 1 -Murder.4, Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All E.R. meter caused gas to leak into her property, which in turn lead to her being poisoned by the He tried to wake her for 30 mins to no avail. A relaxation of the prohibitions in sections 20 and 47 can only encourage the practice of homosexual sadomasochism and the physical cruelty that it must involve (which can scarcely be regarded as a "manly diversion") by withdrawing the legal penalty and giving the activity a judicial imprimatur. basis that he had retreated before he resorted to violence. It was not known which of the attackers had stabbed him. In support of this submission no authority is quoted, save that Mr. McHale has been at considerable length and diligence to look at the text books on the subject, and has demonstrated to us that the text books in the main do not say that preliminary retreat is a necessary prerequisite to the use of force in self-defence. to make it incumbent on the trial judge to give such a direction. the House of Lords. Both appeals were dismissed. a jury would listen to opinion of two doctors that had the standing the experts did in this case. The doctors inserted a tracheotomy tube, which remained in place for four weeks and initially improved the victims condition. Alleyne was born on August 3, 1978 and was 20 atthe time of Jonathan's death. She was informed that without a blood transfusion she would die but still refused to countenance treatment as a result of her religious conviction. In fact the cartridge was live and she died from her injury. In Woollin Lord Steyn laid down a model direction for trial judges to use in cases where the defendant's intention is unclear, subsequently this direction has been used in the cases of R. v. Matthews & Alleyne [2003] and in R. v. Matthew Stringer [2008]. The defendant appealed. 623; 43 Cr. The appellant threw his 3 month old baby son on to a hard surface as a result as the baby He became involved in an apparently unprovoked argument. Did the defendants have to have knowledge of the victims medical condition for them to realise that their act was likely to be dangerous? It is true that to a certain extent this involves an element of circularity, but in this branch of the law I do not believe that is fatal to its being correct as a test of how far conduct must depart from accepted standards to be characterised as criminal. The defendant appealed on the grounds that the judge should have directed the jury on the medical evidence in relation to provocation. Facts. Rep. 269.. R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110.. R v Cheshire (1991) 3 All E. 670 R v Williams (1992) 2 All E. 183 C.. R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595 R v Corbett [1996] Crim. She did not see a risk that he shed or its contents would be destroyed, and would not have understood the risk if she had given thought to it. Published: 6th Aug 2019. App. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm caused solely by words. received a sentence of 4 years. no place in English criminal law unless expressly adopted by Parliament in a statute. The meter however was connected to the neighbouring house which was occupied by the appellants future mother-in-law. The post-mortem found that the victim died of broncho-pneumonia following the abdominal injury sustained. To better understand why the direction in Woollin may lack clarity it is necessary to look at the issues surrounding this area of law and identify some previous contentious cases and then investigate whether there should be a statutory definition for intention. R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003) Court of Appeal Criminal Division. main do not say that preliminary retreat is a necessary prerequisite to the use of force in self- explained to the jury that the greater the probability of a consequence occurring, the more Whilst the victim did apprehend immediate unlawful personal violence, the appellant's actions did not constitute an assault. Conviction would require a double transfer of intent: first from the mother to the foetus and then from the foetus to the child as yet unborn and that was impermissible. Under the Street Offences Act 1959 c.57, the police officer had no power to detain the woman. Appeal dismissed. 821, Mary and Jodie were conjoined twins joined at the pelvis. At his trial medical evidence was given that the defendant suffered from an organic brain problem induced by a head injury. Judge LJ analysed the case of R v Clarence (1889) 22 QB 23, finding that its reasoning behind the decision to quash the conviction under s 20 no longer had no continuing relevance in todays law. (i) in Mary's best interest, actions must be proportional to the gravity of the threat. In line with authority, a careful direction should be given in relation to how to regard the appellants conduct after the killing and the lies told thereafter should have been given in the instant case. Another friend pulled the appellant off Bishop and The appellant was charged with the offence of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm under S.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The fire was put out before any serious damage was caused. It was further opined that if the jury had been given the opportunity to consider the defence of consent, in that the appellants had only been participating in rough and undisciplined play, and where there was no intention to cause harm or serious injury, then they would have likely rejected the conviction. 2 For a recent overview . if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3','ezslot_3',125,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-3-0'); Times 18-Feb-2003if(typeof ez_ad_units != 'undefined'){ez_ad_units.push([[300,250],'swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4','ezslot_7',113,'0','0'])};__ez_fad_position('div-gpt-ad-swarb_co_uk-medrectangle-4-0'); Cited Regina v Nedrick CACD 10-Jul-1986 The appellant poured paraffin through the front door of a house and set it alight. The post-mortem found that the victims windpipe had narrowed near the location where the tracheotomy pipe had been inserted. Mrs Fox's engagement ring went missing and the she accused the student of stealing it. He was convicted of maliciously administering a noxious substance so as to endanger life under s.23 OAPA 1861. D has also drunk a large amount of alcohol before the killing. The decision was appealed. 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. The operation could be lawfully carried out by the doctors. According to Lord Steyn, The surest test of a new legal rule is not whether it satisfies a team of logicians but how it performs in the real world. Lord Atkins on the degree of negligence required for gross negligence manslaughter: Two 15 year old boys threw a paving slab off a railway bridge as a train approached. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result. [(426)]. Murder - Mens Rea - Intention - Foresight. In so doing he wrenched the gas pipes from the wall and gassed the next-door neighbour, whose life was endangered. "The third point taken by Mr. McHale is that the deputy chairman was wrong in directing the Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates, Includes copious academic commentary in summary form, Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole. After the victim refused the defendants sexual advances the defendant stabbed the victim four times. The complainants could not have given proper consent as they were not honestly informed. The accused had been subjected sexual abuse by her father as a child in Guyana and further subjected to physical and sexual abuse from the inception of marriage by her husband. He stated that he did not think anyone was in the vicinity and did not foresee a risk of any harm he only wanted to see how far the pellets would go. It is family of which is conflicted with; misbehavior, child neglect or abuse on the part of an individual. commercial premises.. .being reckless as to whether such property would be damaged. The The defendant and his stepfather who had a friendly and loving relationship were engaged in a drunken competition to see which of them could load a shotgun faster than the other. The appellant's conviction for manslaughter was quashed. The doctors applied to the court for a declaration that it would be lawful and in the best interests of the children to operate. his evidence, was that the deceased, with whom he had lived as man and wife for three or hindsight, the verdict must be that the rule laid down by the majority in Caldwell failed this Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx. that its removal could cause harm to his future mother-in-law. Sadomasochistic homosexual activity cannot be regarded as conducive to the enhancement or enjoyment of family life or conducive to the welfare of society. Finally, heroin is a potentially harmful substance and thus a noxious thing for the purposes of s. 23 OAPA 1861; since the act of administration was deliberate and direct, there is no need to find maliciousness.

Karen Carter Measurements, Channel 4 Embarrassing Bodies Photo Gallery, Articles R