R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:59 UTC
FACTS
A tramp accidentally set a mattress on fire and rather than putting it out, left it and moved to another room.
JUDGEMENT
By the time that someone becomes aware of a mistake that they themselves have made, then they have a duty to resolve the problem, referring to the Criminal Damage Act.
He also points out that the action should be taken as a whole action, so that one cannot object that the actus reus and mens rea do not coincide.
The tramp is not in the position of someone who happens to chance upon a fire, and he is bound because he himself started the fire.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Willoughby
A man burned down his pub so as to avoid paying the mortgage and a person died. He was convicted of manslaughter after the judge directed that on account of his ownership the jury may infer that he...
R v Caldwell
Arson involves intentionally setting fire to property (actus reus) with the required intent (mens rea), which can be either recklessness or intent to damage or destroy property. Arson endangering lif...
R v Goodfellow
Manslaughter is a legal charge that involves the unlawful killing of another person, and it intersects with charges related to arson causing death by reckless conduct. The intentional act of setting...
R v Hardie
The nature of charges of arson and damage to property was pressed when the defendant's self-induced intoxication was used as a defense. Absence of intention due to voluntary intoxication can be used...
R v Fagan
A man ran his car on to a policeman’s foot accidentally, but when asked to move refused to do so. The defence argument was that mens rea and actus reus did not coincide and therefore there was no cri...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.