House of Lords case on the mens rea for murder, establishing that foresight of serious bodily harm as a highly probable consequence can constitute malice aforethought.

A key case establishing the limitations of transferred malice where the type of harm differs from that intended. The defendant threw a stone intending to hit people but broke a window instead.

A foundational case establishing the test for gross negligence manslaughter, requiring negligence so gross that it amounts to a crime and merits criminal punishment rather than mere civil liability.

R v Latimer established the doctrine of transferred malice in criminal law, where a defendant's intention to harm one person can be transferred to make them liable for actually harming another person. This case is fundamental to understanding how criminal intent operates when the actual victim differs from the intended victim.

R v Cunningham established the modern test for 'maliciously' in statutory offences, requiring either actual intention to cause harm or subjective recklessness where the defendant foresees the risk of harm. This case rejected the previous objective test and emphasised that mens rea requires subjective awareness of risk.

An important case on unlawful act manslaughter where the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction because the defendant's act was not unlawful when he lacked mens rea for assault.

R v Vickers established that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for murder, even if the defendant did not specifically intend to kill. The case arose when Vickers struck an elderly shopkeeper during a burglary, causing her death, though he claimed no intention to kill.

Established the definition of specific intent for criminal law purposes, requiring a decision to bring about a prohibited consequence. The case involved attempted murder where the defendant drove at a police officer.

R v Majewski established that voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defence to crimes of basic intent, distinguishing between crimes of basic and specific intent. This landmark case clarified when defendants can rely on intoxication as a defence in criminal law.

This Supreme Court case established a new test for dishonesty in criminal law, overruling the subjective element of the Ghosh test. The case arose from a professional gambler's civil claim against a casino after being accused of cheating at baccarat through edge-sorting.

Established that a continuing act can satisfy the actus reus and mens rea requirements for assault, even if formed at different times. The defendant accidentally drove onto a police officer's foot but then refused to move when asked.

House of Lords case establishing that foresight of consequences is evidence of intention but not equivalent to intention itself in murder cases.

Recklessness includes failing to consider obvious risks that would be apparent to reasonable person.

R v Ghosh established the test for dishonesty in criminal law, requiring both objective and subjective elements. The case created a two-stage test that was fundamental to determining dishonesty in fraud and theft cases until the Supreme Court replaced its subjective second limb with a wholly objective test in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67.

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

This case established the fundamental test for the insanity defence in English criminal law. The defendant shot the Prime Minister's secretary believing he was being persecuted by the government.

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

Reckless criminal damage requires risk to property beyond the damaging instrument itself.

A Victorian case where a man deceived a woman into having sexual intercourse by pretending it was a medical procedure. The court held that deception as to the nature of the act vitiates consent.

Two shipwrecked sailors killed and ate their teenage cabin boy to survive at sea, then were charged with murder upon rescue. The court rejected the defence of necessity, establishing that necessity cannot justify taking an innocent life.

House of Lords clarifies intent requirements for assault causing bodily harm

Unlawful act manslaughter requires no foresight of harm by defendant

R v Pittwood established that a person can be criminally liable for omissions where they have undertaken a duty of care. A railway gatekeeper who failed to close level crossing gates, resulting in a fatal collision, was convicted of manslaughter despite not having actively caused the death.

R v White established that causation in criminal law requires the defendant's act to be a factual cause of the prohibited result. White attempted to poison his mother but she died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect, breaking the chain of causation and resulting in conviction only for attempt.

House of Lords establishes liability for omission after creating dangerous situation

R v Gibbins and Proctor established that a person can be criminally liable for murder by omission where they have a duty to act but fail to do so. The case involved a father and his partner who failed to feed the father's child, resulting in the child's death from starvation.

House of Lords clarifies test for intention in murder cases

The House of Lords established the fundamental principles governing intoxication as a defence in criminal law, distinguishing between crimes of specific and basic intent and setting rules for when intoxication can negate mens rea.

Woolmington v DPP established the fundamental principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. The case overturned the previous rule that required defendants to prove their innocence when claiming self-defence in murder cases.

Steane, a British actor, made propaganda broadcasts for Germany during WWII to protect his family from a concentration camp. The Court of Appeal held that for the offence of doing acts likely to assist the enemy with intent to assist the enemy, the prosecution must prove the accused intended to assist the enemy, not merely that he intended to do the acts.

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

House of Lords sets definitive test for gross negligence manslaughter

Court of Appeal establishes 'virtual certainty' test for criminal intention

The defendant was charged with robbery and assault. She raised the defence that she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a rape three days earlier, which caused her to act in a dissociative state without mens rea. The court accepted that PTSD could negative the mens rea required for the offences if it caused such a state.

Gammon contracted to build a building in Hong Kong but deviated from approved plans in material respects, breaching building regulations. The Privy Council addressed when mens rea is required for statutory offences, establishing a presumption favouring mens rea that can be displaced only in limited circumstances for regulatory offences of genuine public concern.

Defendant liable when reasonably foreseeable that vulnerable victim could suffer harm

A landlady was convicted under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 for being concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis, without knowledge of the illegal activities. The House of Lords quashed the conviction, holding that mens rea is presumed necessary for statutory offences absent clear contrary intention.

Medical negligence rarely breaks chain of causation in homicide cases

Involuntary intoxication no defence if criminal intent still formed

Defendant liable for victim's unforeseeable reaction to assault

Court establishes objective test for dangerous unlawful act in manslaughter cases