R v Haigh

R v Haigh

As is peculiar to criminal law in most jurisdictions, the necessary component for murder requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the both the act itself (actus reus), and the subjective intention (mens rea) of those accused, and so on this occasion the English criminal courts were left with no option other than to reduce a murder sentence to manslaughter, on grounds that there was simply insufficient evidence to adduce deliberate and unlawful killing, as opposed to what could only be construed as a momentary loss of control on the part of the defendant.

Having been born to unloving and thus dysfunctional parents, the appellant had been later adopted by a well educated and devoted couple when aged only eight years of age, and whose only wish was for her to have a better life than the one she had left behind. Sadly during her adolescence, the appellant was further diagnosed with an IQ of just 74, a personality disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and prolonged depression, for which she was on prescribed medication.

After meeting her former partner at the young age of sixteen, the appellant soon became pregnant, and gave birth to their son Billy two years later, and although the two of them remained together for a further three years, her partner was eventually incarcerated for assaulting her; an act which had followed years of his routine verbal and physical abuse towards her both before, and after, their son’s arrival.

At the point of her indictment before the Central Criminal Court, the appellant was reported to have called the ambulance services complaining that her son had stopped breathing, and yet despite clear instructions to perform emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at the time of the call, her son was pronounced dead almost five hours later; after which it was claimed by court that the appellant had murdered her son by way of asphyxiation, and that there was sufficient medical evidence upon which to sustain the conviction; whereupon the appellant challenged the verdict in the Court of Appeals.

Here, the appellant contended that when reaching summary judgment, the trial court had erroneously accepted circumstantial evidence relating to previous interactions with her son, and which presented her in a poor light, however the court referred to R v Penman, in which the deciding court had held that:

“[W]here it is necessary to place before the jury evidence of part of a continual background of history relevant to the offence charged in the indictment and without the totality of which the account placed before the jury would be incomplete or incomprehensible, then the fact that the whole account involves including evidence establishing the commission of an offence with which the accused is not charged is not of itself a ground for excluding the evidence.”

R v Penman

Thus the first aspect of her appeal was denied, while on a second count, the appellant claimed that lack of witness testimony, and only one physical symptom of trauma, prevented the court from establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that she had intended to murder, or at the very least unlawfully kill her son in the moments before his death.

Here the court was reliant upon the presence of petechial haemorrhaging upon her child’s face, which in most instances was attributable to asphyxial death. However, there was also theoretical argument that prolonged resuscitation could also prove a contributory factor; yet further circumstantial evidence proposed this as incredible, based upon the appellant’s refusal to perform CPR whilst waiting for the ambulance crew to arrive, and via witness testimony citing visible evidence of the symptoms upon their arrival.

In addition to this, there was further evidence of bleeding from the child’s ears, which according to expert medical testimony, had often been found present when addressing traumatic asphyxiation cases in which young children had become trapped in washing lines, a  fact which only exacerbated the suggestion that the appellant had either strangled or smothered her son whilst alone with him, therefore the court held that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to determine that the appellant had unlawfully killed her child.

This left only the third count, which was that a murder conviction was unsafe due to the first two factors, and that there was simply no direct evidence to support the contention that the appellant had wilfully and with malice, killed her child, but that instead, the best the court could hope to rely upon was a manslaughter charge; an argument that caused the court to uphold the third ground of appeal before quashing the murder conviction on grounds that in R v Stacey it had held that:

“[A]n intent to do serious bodily harm may be quickly formed and soon regretted; but so may a less serious intent, simply to stop a child crying by handling him in a way that any responsible adult would realise would cause serious damage or certainly might do so. That would only provide the mental element necessary for manslaughter.”

R v Jordan

R v Jordan

Jury conviction beyond any reasonable doubt can often prove protracted and not without its tenuous merits, however on this occasion the determination that murder was the unequivocal cause of death is brought into stark controversy, when the introduction of alternate medical evidence casts serious doubts upon exactly what happened in the time prior to the victim’s death.

In May 1956, the appellant American Serviceman and three other men were embroiled in a fracas when during the disagreement, the appellant stabbed one of those involved, after which the victim later died of broncho-pneumonia whilst recovering in hospital, and upon which the appellant was indicted for murder and found guilty in Leeds Assizes before being sentenced to death.

Under appeal, an investigation by the American authorities revealed new evidence put forward by two highly reputable medical doctors, and which cited that the cause of death was actually related to the administration of terramycin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic that on this occasion, had triggered and allergic reaction that in turn led to diarrhoea, and which was further exacerbated through its continued administration, despite immediate instructions to cease its use.

In addition to this, hospital staff had also intravenously introduced disproportionate doses of saline, which likewise resulted in a pulmonary oedema through waterlogged lungs, a condition that left untreated, causes broncho-pneumonia, and upon which it had been established as the direct cause of death, while the stab wound itself had since been shown to have healed with no known complications.

Faced with such weighty and compelling testimony, the Criminal Court of Appeal turned to a number of distinguishable cases before relying upon R v Harding, in which it had earlier held that:

“Acquittal must follow if the evidence is such as to cause a reasonable doubt, because that is only another way of saying that the prosecution have failed to establish the case.”

R v Harding

Therefore when giving consideration to the effect that this information would have upon a criminal jury, the court deliberated in saying that when faced with such acute medical facts they saw no reason to suspect that the murder conviction would have been rendered unsustainable, and so with little more to debate the appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside in full, while the court reminded the parties that under normal circumstances:

“[D]eath resulting from any normal treatment employed to deal with a felonious injury may be regarded as caused by the felonious injury.”  

Commonwealth v. Couch

While there is a fine line between the deliberation of murder and recklessness of manslaughter, on this occasion the defendant found himself charged with the death of a complete stranger, roughly a year after his unlawful act had transpired.

In a moment of wanton stupidity, the now appellant took it upon himself to fire his pistols towards a public highway in the State of Kentucky, after which a pregnant woman went into premature labour, due to the shock of hearing the gunfire. 

Following an abortive birth and prolonged illness resulting from the failed delivery, the woman sadly died, whereupon the appellant was indicted for her murder by the State. Having been heard in the Perry County Circuit Court, the trial judge upheld the complaint against the charge, on grounds that the two incidents were separate and thus insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder, rather at best the appellant was guilty of the unlawful discharge of his weapons in a public place.

Taken to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, the court reviewed the facts, while reminding the parties that under the terms of his indictment, the court was empowered to convict anywhere between murder, involuntary manslaughter and manslaughter, while also referring to Sparks v. Commonwealth, in which the same court had held that:

“If a man, contrary to law and good order and public security, fires off a pistol in the streets of a town, and death be thereby produced, he must answer criminally for it, whether it be malum in se or merely malum prohibitum; and especially so when he knows, as in this instance, he is violating law.”

Sparks v. Commonwealth

However in the later Hendrickson v. Commonwealth, the court had contrastingly noted that:

“Forcing a person to do an act which causes his death renders the death the guilty deed of him who compelled the deceased to do the act. And it is not material whether the force were applied to the body or to the mind; but, if it were the latter, it must be shown that there was the apprehension of immediate violence, and well grounded from the circumstances by which the deceased was surrounded; and it need not appear that there was no other way of escape; but it must appear that the step was taken to avoid the threatened danger, and was such as a reasonable man might take.”

Hendrickson v. Commonwealth

And so in this instance the appeal court held that while the sound of gunfire had unquestionably caused the deceased to commence premature labour, any illness arising from complications associated with the birth could not be construed as a continuance of the shock, therefore the appellant was lawfully entitled to complain against the indictment, thus accordingly the court upheld the trial court judgment in full, while holding that:

“Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another in doing some unlawful act, but without intent to kill.”

People v. Berry

First degree murder and involuntary manslaughter fall within the same category of unlawful killing, however when the defendant is subject to the misdirection of a jury, the sentence can be one in excess of the prescribed term. In this matter, a man convicted of strangling his wife challenged the trial court decision on grounds of both emotional and mental vulnerability.

In summer of 1974, the appellant married a woman more than half his age, before she travelled back to her home country of Israel. Upon her return, she declared her love for another man with whom she had enjoyed sexual intercourse with on a number of occasions. What then followed was a series of emotional inducements and sexual engagements with the appellant that preceded almost immediate emotional and physical rejections and spurning of his advances.

This pattern of behaviour lasted for a period of around ten days, after which the appellant choked his wife to the point of unconsciousness. Having reported him to the police authorities, the appellant was arrested and charged with assault likely to produce great bodily injury, as per s.245(a)(4) of the California Penal Code, which reads:

“Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine…or by both the fine and imprisonment.”

Within twenty-four hours of her returning home, the two parties began arguing, whereupon the appellant again strangled his wife, instead using a telephone cord until she was dead. Having confessed, the appellant was charged with first degree murder under ss. 187 and 189 of the California Penal Code which read:

“187(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought”

189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of…lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing…with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree.”

Upon which the appellant appealed on grounds that the jury were misdirected when failing to consider the defence submitted by his instructed psychiatrist of voluntary manslaughter under s.192 of the Penal Code, which states:

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds: (a) Voluntary – upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion (b) Involuntary and (c) Vehicular…”

And that due to his mental instability, he was entitled to mitigation under a defence of diminished responsibility as per People v. Mosher, in which malice was eliminated by way of mental defect.

Upon presentation, the California Supreme Court examined s.192 of the California Penal Code and drew reference to People v. Logan, in which the court held that:

“[I]t is left to the jurors to say whether or not the facts and circumstances in evidence are sufficient to lead them to believe that the defendant did, or to create a reasonable doubt in their minds as to whether or not he did, commit his offense under a heat of passion…[F]or the fundamental of the inquiry is whether or not the defendant’s reason was, at the time of his act, so disturbed or obscured by some passion—not necessarily fear and never, of course, the passion for revenge—to such an extent as would render ordinary men of average disposition liable to act rashly or without due deliberation and reflection, and from this passion rather than from judgment.”

People v. Logan

While noting that in People v. Valentine, it had been agreed that verbal provocation would be sufficient to constitute arousal of heat or passion.

With regard to the claim of diminished responsibility, it was also agreed that while diminished capacity typically required evidence of mental illness, mental defect or intoxication, it had been recently held in People v. Long, that mental illness or defect without intoxication was equally sufficient as a defence.

Unfortunately for the appellant, there had at no time, been any mention of mental deficiency within his defence, and so while it was held that the jury were incorrectly directed to determine guilt without consideration of s.192, there could be no mitigation for diminished responsibility, therefore only the first element of the appeal was reversed.

R v Lawrence

Reckless driving, while contextually similar to the criminal charge of recklessness, was at the time of this case, still unclear in terms of the mens rea of drivers brought to trial. Unfortunately for the victim’s family, this uncertainty resulted in an acquittal from the offence on grounds of a confused and thereby ineffective, jury.

In 1979, a couple took a visit to their local off-licence in order to purchase some soft drinks for their children. Parking opposite the shop, the mother entered the store, before standing at the kerbside in preparation for crossing back over the road. Moments after blowing her husband a kiss, the victim stepped into the road before being struck by one of two motorcycles, dying instantly, while being carried at speed on the front of the driver’s vehicle.

Upon indictment, the defendant was convicted by a majority jury of reckless driving under s.1 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. There were also questions raised at the time around the exact speed at which the motorcycle was travelling, with opinions ranging from 30 -80mph, resulting in a lengthy trial, and one in which despite an absolute conviction, left the jury seeking clarification as to exactly what reckless driving required, and whether there was a need to appreciate the mindset of the defendant at the time both before, and during, the time of the offence.

Upon appeal, the Court quashed the conviction upon grounds that where uniform agreement could not be found as to how reckless driving existed under the 1972 Act, there could be no established verdict beyond any reasonable doubt. In response, the regional Chief Constable appealed on behalf of the Crown to the House of Lords, while trying to find agreement as to what s.1 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 truly meant.

Referring to the meaning of recklessness as defined by R v Murphy, the courts recognised that:

“A driver is guilty of driving recklessly if he deliberately disregards the obligation to drive with due care and attention or is indifferent as to whether or not he does so and thereby creates a risk of an accident which a driver driving with due care and attention would not create.”

R v Murphy

However, in cases such as R v Caldwell, the jury were required to consider not only the actus reus (actions) of the accused, but the mens rea (mindset) prior to the act of arson duly charged. This by convention, had not been something applied during road traffic accidents, therefore the jury in this trial were left confused as to whether an objective evaluation was in itself sufficient, or whether subjective consideration was needed to fully contain the origin of recklessness, as opposed to arguments over which speed the defendant was travelling when the offence occurred.

Though a comprehensive chronology of reckless driving within the road traffic offences, the House held that there needed to be two elements to a conviction of recklessness, namely:

(i) “[T]hat the defendant was in fact driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or of doing substantial damage to property…”

And:

(ii) “[T]hat in driving in that manner the defendant did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognised that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it.”

Therefore it was left to the jury to determine if, as hypothetical road users themselves, they felt that a defendant did knowingly choose to take charge of a vehicle with the intention to cause harm, as opposed to harm being caused by means beyond their control. This by effect, also rendered the Murphy direction null and void, while paving the way clear for expeditious trials under similar circumstances.

Fraud

Finding effect through the inception of the Fraud Act 2006 there are three ways fraud can occur: fraud by false representation, failure to disclose information and abuse of position, which we shall look at here and support each one with suitable cases where applicable.

Fraud by False Representation

S.2(1) of the Fraud Act clearly states that a person is guilty of fraud by false representation when it is proven that they did so to (i) cause gain for themselves or another party or (ii) cause or expose another person to loss or a risk of loss (this can be achieved in a number of ways and so oral and written methodology equally apply), as demonstrated in R v Lambie when a consumer continued to use her credit card despite exceeding her credit limit and after being asked by the bank to return it.

When carrying out a purchase in a Mothercare store, the appellant in the appeal case was accused by the defendant of knowingly encouraging a transaction in the knowledge that the bank had no longer given the respondent authority to continue using the card.

This argument was stringently dismissed, while emphasis was placed squarely upon the intention of the respondent to knowingly defraud the store.

An illustration of fraud by false representation was summed up by Lord Roskill who explained:

“[I]t is in my view clear that the representation arising from the presentation of a credit card has nothing to do with the respondent’s credit standing at the bank but is a representation of actual authority to make the contract with, in this case, Mothercare on the bank’s behalf that the bank will honour the voucher upon presentation.”

R v Lambie

This ethos was also outlined in Rex v Sullivan, where Humphreys J stressed:

“[T]he facts are such that it is patent that there was only one reason which anybody could suggest for the person alleged to have been defrauded parting with his money, and that is the false pretence, if it was a false pretence.”

Rex v Sullivan

Fraud by Failure to Disclose Information

Subject to s.3 of the Fraud Act, a person dishonestly failing to disclose information when (i) under a legal duty to so and (ii) by intention gains for themselves or another or causes or exposes another to a loss or risk of loss is thus guilty (where proven) of fraud.

As this relates more to those in public body roles or parties to contract, the establishment of guilt falls to the judicial interpretation of civil law and statute as opposed to the collective opinion of a jury.

An example of this R v Padellec in which a man accused of harbouring indecent images on his computer refused to disclose the encryption password as required under s.53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

After being summarily convicted the appellant appealed under plea in order to reduce his sentence at which point Singh J exclaimed:

“The whole point of requiring access is so that it can be seen what was in fact there. We express the hope that in a situation such as arose in this case, and in the context of an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (section 53), there will never again be a basis of plea accepted which is based upon keeping the contents secret and the defendant saying, to his advantage, what was or was not contained.”

R v Padellec

Fraud by Abuse of Position

S.4(1) of the Fraud Act convicts those (again where proven) for gainful abuse of a position held to safeguard and preserve the financial interests of another, while the gain can be both personal or on behalf of third party(s) and such profits must cause (or expose those assigned protection) loss or risk of loss.

Given the nature of the breach, it is typically applied to fiduciary or professional relationships where trust has been given under express conditions, however it could just as easily apply to family matters depending upon the relationship shared and the declarations made. As with fraud by failure to disclose information the judgments are typically free from jury persuasion and will benefit from equitable principles as much as civil laws for guidance.

An example of this was found in R v Conway (Catherine), in which a domestic care worker abused the trust placed in her by her client by obtaining and then keeping the victim’s debit card before defrauding her of £27,000 over a period of three years. Once caught and convicted, the defendant then accused the victim’s family members of conspiring to the fraud before admitting full liability.

When passing sentence, Weir LJ illustrated the gravity of the abuse when he said:

“This was the calculated and systematic theft over years of a vulnerable lady’s life savings by the very person employed to assist and befriend her at a time in her life when she was at a low ebb and grateful for the help which this appellant cynically pretended to be giving her by buying her a few necessaries using her post office savings card.”

R v Conway (Catherine)

Injunctions

There are many types of legal injunctions across a number of different fields, and their purpose is one of prevention or denial of an action, or that of proximity to a party or place.

In contract law there are mandatory (or negative) and prohibitory injunctions, in civil litigation there are interim (also found in criminal law), anti-suit and freezing injunctions and within family law there are non-molestation and occupation injunctions (or orders), whereas under tort a claimant can apply for either partial or temporary injunctive relief, as well as interim and super-injunctions (depending on the circumstances), while in Equity and trust law there are also perpetual (or final) injunctions, along with quia timet injunctions.

The aim of this article will be to look at all of the above, while supporting each one with illustrative citations to help underpin their use, starting first with negative injunctions.

Mandatory injunctions

Often sought after the fact, the purpose of this injunction is to force by application, the party that has undertaken an act causing sufferance to the clamant, a liability to reverse the damage caused through new action.

There are however, degrees of limitation to its use, as under certain conditions, the extent of work required to restore the balance may outweigh the priority of the claimant seeking redress.

An example of this is Charrington v Simons & Co Ltd, where after selling a portion of his land, the buyer breached the restrictive covenant by resurfacing an adjoining road, despite inherited limitations as to its operational height.

When the applying the injunction, the previous judge set conditions upon its use that allowed the respondent to effectively trespass on his land when restoring the road to its intended level, which was a decision causing further angst toward the appellant and was overturned to ironically set the injunction back into its proper effect.

This was clarified by Russell LJ, who explained:

“…[T]he judge, in adopting the course which he did, travelled beyond the bounds within which discretion may be judicially exercised; for in effect he sought to force upon a reluctant plaintiff something very like a settlement involving operations by the defendant on the plaintiff’s land which must lead to greatly increased harm to his business as a condition or term of his obtaining a mandatory injunction should the works not prove a satisfactory solution.”

Charrington v Simons & Co Ltd

Prohibitory injunctions

While compelling in their purpose, prohibitory injunctions serve to prevent through inaction, and are often used to control the events that either surround a contractual relationship, or follow when the arrangement is dissolved.

Typical scenarios range from former employees prevented from occupying similar positions within a particular radius, or from using their skills to benefit another in a competing field, through to sportsmen unable to play for specific rival teams for a determined period.

The caveat within these restrictions is one of a right to live; and so any prohibitory injunction granted must not deny those relevant, the opportunity to work and live, inclusive to the terms afforded others in a similar position.

An example of this is Jaggard v Sawyer, where damages in lieu were awarded to avoid the imposition of an injunction after completion of a second property upon land that contained restrictive covenants designed to deny such acts.

While the defendants argued that attempts were made to explain their intentions, and that due care was shown during the building process, the appellants refused to accept damages and moved instead to enforce an injunction that by now, was pointless and highly oppressive to the owners and potential tenants of the new house.

This point was made clear by Sir Thomas Bingham MR, who noted:

“It was suggested that an injunction restraining trespass on the plaintiffs roadway would not be oppressive since the occupiers of No. 5A could use the other half of the roadway outside the plaintiffs house, but this would seem to me unworkable in practice, a recipe for endless dispute and a remedy which would yield nothing of value to the plaintiff.”

Jaggard v Sawyer

Interim injunctions

Found in at least three areas of law, these are often used to deny certain actions for a specific period and most often issued pre-trial in order to preserve order while the parties prepare themselves for the hearing without interruption.

That said, it is important that those seeking one are able to rely upon a substantive cause of action, as was explained by Lord Diplock in The Siskina, when he said:

“A right to obtain an [interim] injunction is not a case of action. It cannot stand on its own. It is dependent upon there being a pre-existing cause of action against the defendant arising out of an invasion, actual or threatened by him, of a legal or equitable right of the [claimant] for the enforcement of which the defendant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. The right to obtain an [interim] injunction is merely ancillary and incidental to the pre-existing cause of action.”

The Siskina

It is also not uncommon for the High Courts to issue interim injunctions when criminal matters call, while this position was made clear when in Attorney-General v Chaudry, Lord Denning MR expounded:

“There are many statutes which provide penalties for breach of them; penalties which are enforceable by means of a fine or even imprisonment but this has never stood in the way of the High Court gaining an injunction. Many a time people have found it profitable to pay a fine and go on breaking the law. In all such cases the High Court has been ready to grant an injunction…”

Attorney-General v Chaudry

Within tort there is legislative security offered through the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 which explains within s.3, that those seeking relief can apply for injunctions carrying criminal sanctions for non-compliance.

This is seen in celebrity and media related cases, including AM v News Group Newspapers Ltd, where an emergency interim injunction was ordered against a number of leading newspapers, after their photographers descended upon the home of a landlord that inadvertently let one of his properties out to a suspected terrorist; an act which then attracted unwanted and stressful press attention around the claimant’s private residence.

The grounds for this restriction were outlined by Tugendhat J, who commented:

“Measures to ensure that respect is given to person’s home and family and family are required by ECHR Art 8 and Human Rights Act 1998 s.6. In so far as the order that I make prohibits disclosure of information, it is with a view to preventing interference with that right by intrusion or harassment, not preventing disclosure of information which is sensitive for any other reason.”

AM v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Freezing injunctions

Also known as a Mareva Injunction, this order is issued in relation to assets involved in a civil claim.

The injunction will typically apply only to the value argued, and it prevents access by one party that might otherwise seek to remove or sell them for profit. While used to secure their presence during pre-trial and proceedings, the order cannot override the effects of liquidation, and those seeking claim may find themselves denied of success when judgment is made.

An example of the strict criteria surrounding freezing injunctions (particularly without notice) was expressed by Neuberger J in Thane Investments Ltd v Tomlinson (No1), where he remarked:

“…[T]he duty of a person seeking an order, and in particular an order which can have as substantial an effect as a freezing order, in the absence of the Defendant against whom it is sought, is strict and important. An order against a person in his absence, particularly when it is a freezing order, which is a very serious infringement of his rights and liberties, can only be justified on appropriately clear and strong facts and risks. It should only be granted in circumstances which provide maximum protection for the person against whom the order is to be made. The courts have frequently emphasised the importance of compliance with the various requirements of the Rules relating to the obtaining of without notice orders.”

Thane Investments Ltd v Tomlinson (No1)

Non-Molestation injunctions

Designed to provide victim protection within intimate or blood-related relationships, this injunction can be sought by the party involved, or under s.60 of the Family Law Act 1996 where a third party can seek the court’s issue if those suffering are too afraid to request it.

The purpose of this order is in the name, inasmuch as denial of physical access when used to molest, harass or threaten the claimant to the point of legal intervention through verbal abuse and unwarranted use of that person’s private property.

The importance of this order was outlined by Wall J in G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction), where after the original court failed to grant protection to a single mother, it was overturned and expeditiously supported through the words:

“Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 is designed to provide swift and accessible protective remedies to persons of both sexes who are the victims of domestic violence, provided they fall within the criteria laid down by section 62. It would, I think, be most unfortunate if section 62(3) was narrowly construed so as to exclude borderline cases where swift and effective protection for the victims of domestic violence is required.”

G v F (Non-Molestation Order: Jurisdiction)

Occupation injunctions

Sometimes issued in conjunction with a non-molestation injunction, the occupation injunction confers power upon the court to prevent those in question from occupying a property.

This can be used in both domestic abuse cases and also civil disputes surrounding property ownership or residency. As this injunction runs risk of serious restriction to individual rights, the circumstances surrounding its use must be fully evaluated to avoid counter claims by the affected party.

This strict yet delicate approach was underlined by Lady Justice Black in Dolan v Corby, where she stressed:

“…[I]t must be recognised that an order requiring a respondent to vacate the family home and overriding his property rights is a grave or draconian order and one which would only be justified in exceptional circumstances, but exceptional circumstances can take many forms and are not confined to violent behaviour on the part of the respondent or the threat of violence and the important thing is for the judge to identify and weigh up all the relevant features of the case whatever their nature.”

Dolan v Corby

Super injunctions

Falling under the umbrella of interim injunctions, a super injunction reveals greater, yet highly focussed powers when preventing actions of third parties.

Typically used to deny publication of potentially damaging material, this order can be issued without notice, and not only denies public access, but anonymises the applicants identities, making it an effective tool for public figures and corporate entities alike.

The validity of this injunction was well explained by The Master of the Rolls in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd, where it was outlined:

“…[T]he claimant’s case as to why there is a need for restraints on publication of aspects of the proceedings themselves which can normally be published is simple and cogent. If the media could publish the name of the claimant and the substance of the information which he is seeking to exclude from the public domain (i.e. what would normally be information of absolutely central significance in any story about the case who is seeking what), then the whole purpose of the injunction would be undermined, and the claimant’s private life may be unlawfully exposed.”

JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Perpetual (or final) injunctions

Unlike interim injunctions, these orders are issued at point of judgment, and therefore remain in effect for an unlimited period.

An example of this is Law Society v Kordowski, in which a website designed to allow members of the public free expression of their disdain following direct experience with named solicitors, was challenged upon numerous litigious grounds.

This case was one of a number of individual matters, and when moving to award final and indefinite removal of the site and future publications, Tugendhat J iterated that such injunctions were imperative when:

“The procedural remedy of representative proceedings, coupled with an injunction, may be the best that the law can offer at present to protect the public from the unjustifiable dissemination of false information about the suppliers of goods and services. It is also the means by which the court may protect its limited resources in time and judiciary from having to deal with large numbers of claims by different claimants against the same individual on the same or similar facts.”

Law Society v Kordowski

Quia Timet injunctions

In much the same as mandatory injunctions serve to ‘undo’ the damage done, quia timet injunctions are anticipatory, in that their purpose is the prevention of potential future harm, that while proactive in design, relies upon compelling evidence to provoke court dispensation.

The importance of overwhelming argument was made clear by Lord Dunedin in Attorney-General for Canada v Ritchie Contracting & Supply Co Ltd, when he outlined:

“Any restraint upon that at the instance of the other party must consist of an injunction of the quia timet order. But no one can obtain a quia timet order by merely saying ” Timeo ” ; he must aver and prove that what is going on is calculated to infringe his rights.”

Attorney-General for Canada v Ritchie Contracting & Supply Co Ltd,

In closing, it must be noted that this is by no means an exhaustive list of injunctions; however it is hopefully detailed enough to provide a sound knowledge base when an understanding of their differences and relevance within case law is a priority.

It may also pay to consider that in many instances there will always be degrees of overlap, as nothing in life is ever straightforward, while it is only through the investigative efforts of the judges that the attributable criteria can emerge.

R v Kennedy

The domestic criminal law principle of ‘free will’ within the confines of substance abuse, is a question that by extension, remains fraught with uncertainty (with particular regard to Class A substances). In this drug related death case, the issue before the court was fundamentally one of autonomy versus conjoined culpability.

When two drug users were engaging in social discourse, the now deceased party asked the appellant to prepare a syringe of heroin, so that he might be able to sleep that evening. After preparing the drug in the manner requested, the appellant left the room, before the deceased self-injected the measured dose. Minutes afterwards, the user was found breathless, and pronounced dead upon arrival at the nearest hospital.

When heard during the original trial, the appellant was convicted of supplying a class A drug under s.4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and administering the drug under s.23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. These two offences were then tantamount to a charge of manslaughter, and sentence was set at eight years, with five of those under imprisonment. When the defendant appealed, the judges unflinchingly upheld the conviction, and it so was that when the Criminal Cases Review Commission studied the finer details of the case, that it was bought again before the Court of Appeal, where despite strongly presented contentions, it was summarily dismissed and left to the defendant to seek final appeal in the House of Lords. 

With a need for investigation surrounding the notion that administration implied contributory action on the part of the supplier, it was eventually made clear that the pervious judges had become victim to self-misdirection, despite distinguishing case citations presented throughout the appeals. Ultimately the doctrine of novus actus interveniens  was sufficiently present enough for the injecting party to have acted under free will, and an appreciation of the inherent risks associated with heroin abuse; and that while the first offence (which itself carried a prison sentence) remained intact, the charge of manslaughter could not stand, when held against the perhaps better appreciated evidence now on display.

R v Miller

Actus reus and mens rea, are two very widely used criminal law maxims that once were essential for the clarification of intention, but sadly over the passage of time, the former has become victim to legal abuses by lawyers seeking to bend a virtue that perhaps warrants review after hundreds of years of application.

In this matter, the accused was a homeless man, who after drinking a reasonable amount of alcohol, entered a vacant home, before taking up occupancy in an empty room. After lighting a cigarette, he then fell asleep on a mattress, at which point the cigarette began to ignite the mattress fibres, thereby causing it to slowly smoulder.

Upon waking, the appellant saw what was happening, but chose to simply get up from the mattress and walk into an adjacent room, before returning to sleep. It was not until the arrival of the local fire brigade, that he awoke again to discover that the room he had since left was now ablaze, and that significant fire damage had resulted from his failure to extinguish the burning mattress.

Upon summary, the appellant stood accused of recklessness causing criminal damage to another’s property, that in turn led to a conviction of arson under s.1(1)(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. While under appeal, it was argued that both mens rea and actus reus are key elements to a criminal conviction, and that because the appellant had left the room, he could not be found liable through inaction, as opposed to action (actus reus), while further arguing that he was under no obligation to extinguish the burning mattress, and that his mens rea was ultimately irrelevant to the proceeding fire.

The crux of this defence misdirection is that while actus reus explores the actions of a defendant, the reality of life is that inaction by its own virtue, is an equally destructive process when the party in question can see very clearly that it was his previous actions that initiated the root offence, and that there were sufficient steps available to the defendant to prevent the damage from spreading (including seeking the assistance of third parties to that effect). Therefore, a defence based upon the interpretation of a word does nothing to circumvent the social responsibility of those faced with potentially (yet avoidable) damaging situations.

While the appeal was dismissed, it was again put before the House of Lords who listened intently to a bargaining application for the quashing of an arson charge, before succinctly explaining that with no quarter for doubt, it was evident that the appellant had elected to recklessly avoid his personal obligation to prevent the fire from growing, in favour of distancing himself from his original action, regardless of the foreseeable consequences that followed.

R v Stone

In this landmark criminal law case, the distinction between indifference to, and perception of risk, are carefully weighed, in order to appreciate that when compared for their relevance to recklessness, the outcome remains the same, despite differing routes to dire consequences.

In 1972, an eccentric sibling moved into the home of her older disabled brother after a falling out with her sister. The terms of the living arrangement was that of a landlord and tenant, in so much that rent was paid and each were free to live their lives independently of one another. While the brother lived with his mistress and housekeeper along with his mentally challenged son, the sister occupied the front room of the home and maintained a high degree of privacy, despite openly suffering from anorexia nervosa (although undiagnosed at the time); a condition that precluded regular meals in favour of a low bodyweight, that in many instances was known to result in premature death, or at best, extreme immobility.

After a period of almost nearly three years, the sister’s health deteriorated to a point that she became permanently bedridden and unable to clean or feed herself. Despite repeated express concerns from the mistress to the brother regards his sister’s condition, there were no attempts made by the either party to extend their efforts in seeking medical help beyond that of unsuccessfully trying to locate her doctor. When matters continued with no real intervention, the now seriously ill woman was eventually found dead in her bed, amidst evidence that no care had been taken to tend to her toiletry needs or physical health requirements, prior to her death.

When reported to the police, the two defendants were summoned and convicted of manslaughter upon grounds of a breach of duty of care through recklessness, whereupon the two parties appealed under the presumption of diminished responsibility. When considered under appeal, the judges found that irrespective of whether the couple claimed to have taken limited steps to get the deceased help, there was insufficient evidence to avoid the conviction of recklessness, as (i) there was adequate foresight of the risk posed to the dying woman while under the assumed care of her brother and mistress, and (ii) that the conduct taken to redress such a risk, was made with little regard to the seriousness of her condition.

Ultimately, and when taken in context, the court felt that it mattered not which route had been taken, only that the destination resulted in her death; and that both parties had been made aware of possible options, yet continued to ignore the duty bestowed upon those assigned the care of a vulnerable person, in particular a close relative with a history of self-neglect and malnutrition.