Landmark Criminal cases

Court of Appeal establishes landmark two-stage test for dishonesty in criminal law

Supreme Court revolutionises dishonesty test, abolishing Ghosh's subjective element

Established the M'Naghten Rules defining criminal insanity defence requirements.

Transferred malice doesn't apply when the type of harm differs from intended

Deception as to the nature and quality of sexual act vitiates consent.

Necessity cannot justify murder even in desperate survival situations

Transferred malice doctrine established when defendant injures unintended victim

Railway gatekeeper convicted for manslaughter by omission after failing duty

Defendant's failed poisoning attempt breaks causation chain despite victim's death

Criminal liability established for murder by omission where duty to act exists

Intoxication can negate specific intent but not basic intent; established key intoxication defence principles.

Gross negligence manslaughter requires negligence so gross it amounts to crime

House of Lords establishes golden thread: prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Intent required for aiding the enemy must be proven; duress may negate mens rea

Palpably wrong medical treatment can break the chain of causation.

Intention to cause grievous bodily harm sufficient for murder conviction

Physical disease affecting brain constitutes insanity if it impairs mental faculties and reasoning.

Cunningham establishes subjective test for malice in criminal law

Reasonable person test includes defendant's physical but not mental characteristics.

Abnormality of mental functioning defined broadly for diminished responsibility defence

A person intends the natural and probable consequences of their acts.

Automatism requires totally involuntary conduct; insanity defence available for mental disease causing automatism.

Court establishes objective test for dangerous unlawful act in manslaughter cases

No unlawful act manslaughter without mens rea for the underlying unlawful act

Section 20 GBH requires foresight of some harm only, not serious harm specifically.

Mens rea is presumed required for statutory offences unless expressly or impliedly excluded.

A continuing act can constitute assault when mens rea is formed during the act.

Voluntary intoxication no defence to manslaughter despite LSD-induced hallucinations

You can steal your own property from someone with superior possession rights.

Defendant liable for victim's unforeseeable reaction to assault

Theft can occur even when the victim consents to the taking.

Court defines burglary requiring knowledge of trespassory entry

Distinguished insane automatism from non-insane automatism in criminal defences.

You must take your victim as you find them, including religious beliefs.

Foresight of highly probable serious harm can constitute mens rea for murder.

Exceeding permitted entry with intent to steal constitutes trespassory burglary.

Injecting heroin is unlawful dangerous act sufficient for manslaughter conviction

Specific intent requires decision to bring about the prohibited consequence as means or end.

Voluntary intoxication no defence to crimes of basic intent

Voluntary assumption of care creates criminal duty toward vulnerable adults

Unlawful act manslaughter requires no foresight of harm by defendant

Actus reus can be satisfied by omission where legal duty to act exists

Robbery is continuing act - force can occur during ongoing theft

Criminal damage can apply to your own property when others have legal interests.

Impossibility was a defence to conspiracy charges - later legislative changes

Reasonable person test includes age and relevant characteristics affecting gravity of provocation.

A police officer can be guilty of misconduct in public office by wilful omission of duty

Trespass for burglary can occur within buildings you're otherwise permitted to enter.

Confidential information cannot be stolen as it does not constitute property under theft law.