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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Court of Appeal established that a person can be convicted of criminal damage to their own property if it is subject to a charge or lien giving another person rights in it.

R v Pagett established the principles of factual causation in criminal law where the defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield during a shootout with police, resulting in her death from police gunfire. The case clarified that a defendant can be held criminally responsible for consequences of their actions even when an intervening act by a third party directly causes the harm.

Court of Appeal case establishing that a victim's unreasonable reaction can break the chain of causation if it is unforeseeable and unreasonable.

R v Cheshire established that medical negligence does not break the chain of causation between a defendant's unlawful act and death unless the medical treatment is so independent of the original act and potent in causing death that it renders the contribution of the acts insignificant. This case clarified the test for novus actus interveniens in criminal law.

R v Roberts established the 'thin skull rule' in criminal law, holding that a defendant is liable for all consequences of their unlawful act, even if the victim's reaction was unforeseeable. The case demonstrates that defendants must take their victims as they find them, including their particular sensitivities or unusual reactions.

Court of Appeal case establishing the 'thin skull rule' and that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, including their religious beliefs.

Court of Appeal case establishing that medical treatment can break the chain of causation if it is palpably wrong and the original wound is no longer life-threatening.

A leading case on transferred malice where the defendant's intention to harm one person resulted in harm to another. The Court of Appeal confirmed that malice can transfer from the intended victim to the actual victim.

A landmark case establishing that for unlawful act manslaughter, the defendant must have known or ought to have known that the victim was vulnerable when that vulnerability contributes to death.

An important Court of Appeal case establishing that for unlawful act manslaughter, the dangerousness test is purely objective and defendants are not liable for unforeseeable consequences of their victim's hidden vulnerabilities.