1) Murder And Voluntary Manslaughter Cases

D allowed Stone’s sister to live with them. She became ill and unable to care for herself and died. D's had assumed some responsibility and so had a duty of care towards the sister.Ds' were convicted of manslaughter through failing to care for her or summon help when she became helpless.

D put cyanide in his mother’s drink intending to kill her. His mother died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect. So D had intended to kill his mother and she had died. However, his were not the cause of her death. So D found not guilty of murder although he was guilty of attempted murder.

D was a drug addict and spent the night with a friend injecting each other with a mixture of heroin and water. In the morning both felt ill and the V died. Court of Appeal found that the heroin need not be the only cause of death, but that it was more than a minimal cause which accelerated the V’s death.

D stabbed a woman and punctured her lung. The V refused a blood transfusion as it was contrary to her religious beliefs and died the next day. The principle that a defendant must take their victim as they find them was found to apply to the mental as well as the physical characteristics of the victim. It was held the stab wound caused the V’s death.

D stabbed the V, who was taken to hospital. A week later, the wound had nearly healed. Doctors injected antibiotics in error, the V had a severe allergic reaction and died. The administration of medical treatment had been palpably wrong. D’s original action was not the operating and substantial cause of death. D

guilty of wounding but did not cause the death of the victim.

D, a soldier, had a fight with another soldier and stabbed him in the lung. The V was carried to a medical centre by others but he was dropped twice on the way. At the medical centre, the V was given artificial respiration by chest compressions.Which was worsened V's condition.An hour later V died. Defendant argued chain of causation had been broken by errors made in an attempt to care for the victim. Court held the defendant’s stabbing was the operating and substantial cause of the victim’s death. D convicted of murder.

V jumped from a car in order to escape from D's sexual advances. The car was travelling between 20-40mph. V was injured from jumping out of the car. D was found liable for the injuries.
*refer William 1991 as well

D gave a lift to hitch hiker, the V, and allegedly tried to rob him. V jumped from the car and died from head injuries. Court of Appeal asked whether the victim’s conduct was: .. within the ambit of reasonableness and not so daft as to make his own voluntary act one which amounted to a novus actus interveniens and consequently broke the chain of causation....

D was the V’s parent,who gave their child a fatal overdose as the child was suffering a severely painful terminal illness. D was guilty of murder, meaning there is no specific requirement for malice to be present.

D broke into shop cellar. D attacked the elderly female owner who died from her injuries. It was held the intention to inflict serious bodily harm was sufficient to impose liability for murder.

D had been drinking with the V, his stepfather. As a joke they challenged each other to see who was the fastest to load a gun. D won and pulled the trigger, killing the V. D argued he had no intention and was convicted of murder.House of Lords reduced his conviction to manslaughter. Finding that the mere foresight of probable death was not sufficient for intention, although it could be used to infer intention by the jury.

D poured paraffin through a woman’s letterbox and set it alight intending to frighten her. The victim, her child, died in the fire. Jury found D guilty of murder.Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and found the defendant guilty of manslaughter.

Defendant was feeding his three month old son. The baby choked, the defendant lost his temper and threw the baby towards his pram. The baby hit the wall and suffered fatal head injuries. Defendant did not have direct intention.

15 year old boy killed his tormentor with a chapati pan.The house of lords ruled that the term 'reasonable man' was not confined to the adult male, but a person of the sex and age of the accused'. Futhermore, would the reasonable man, sharing the characteristics of the accused, be similarly provoked, and react to the provocation as the accused did?

Defendant killed her husband when he fell asleep. Defendant was suffering from Battered Woman’s Syndrome. D was found guilty of murder.Court of Appeal did not allow her appeal on the basis of provocation as there was no sudden loss of control, highlighting the longer the delay the more likely the act had been deliberate. However, the court did allow her appeal on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

The D killed her abusive husband after a delay.After one incident she went to the kitchen and sharpened her knife and stabbed him to death.On her second appeal it was held that the incident could act as the last straw.In the retrial she was acquitted of murder

The drunken defendant killed his girlfriend with an axe.t his trial he raised the defence of provocation. He wished to rely on his alcoholism, depression and other personality traits. The jury convicted him of murder. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal who quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. He was again convicted at the retrial and again appealed. His conviction was again quashed and a manslaughter conviction was substituted.

A young mother killed her mother with a hammer.Post natal depression could cause diminished responsibility.

A woman who killed could bring evidence to show that her responsibility had been impaired enough by premenstrual tension to admit the defense of diminished responsibility

The defendant killed her daughter under the influence of alcohol.She tried to use alcohol as diminished responsibility since she was an alchoholic.
drnkeness was not the abnormality of mind but alcoholism was considered abnormality of mind.

D had killed his wife and step-daughter while suffering from depression,combined with the effects of drinks and drugs .At trail the jury was invited to decide whether it was depression or the intoxication that was the main cause of the defendant's mental state.He was convicted of murder