AQA A-Level Law: 50 Key Criminal Law Cases You Must Know
Criminal law is the backbone of the AQA A-Level Law specification, and knowing your cases is the difference between a competent answer and an outstanding one. Examiners consistently reward students who cite relevant case authority accurately and concisely. This guide presents the 50 most important criminal law cases you need to know, organised by topic area, with the facts and legal principle for each.
Bookmark this page, print it out, or turn it into flashcards. However you learn best, make sure every one of these cases is at your fingertips before you walk into the exam.
For full interactive revision of criminal law, see our course: AQA A-Level Law: Criminal Law.
Actus Reus
The actus reus is the physical element of a crime — the guilty act (or omission). These cases establish when a defendant has committed a sufficient act, when a failure to act can amount to a crime, and the rules on causation.
1. R v White [1910]
The defendant put cyanide in his mother's drink, but she died of a heart attack before the poison could take effect. Principle: The "but for" test for factual causation — the defendant's act must be the factual cause of the prohibited consequence. Here, the defendant was not the factual cause of death and was convicted of attempted murder instead.
2. R v Pagett [1983]
The defendant used his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield while shooting at police officers. The police returned fire and killed the girlfriend. Principle: The defendant's act need not be the sole or main cause of death. The reasonable and foreseeable actions of a third party (the police) did not break the chain of causation.
3. R v Smith [1959]
A soldier stabbed a fellow soldier. The victim was dropped twice on the way to the medical station and received poor medical treatment. He died. Principle: The original wound remained the "operating and substantial cause" of death. Poor medical treatment will not break the chain of causation unless it is "so independent of the defendant's act and so potent in causing death" that the original wound is merely the setting.
4. R v Cheshire [1991]
The defendant shot the victim. The victim developed complications from a tracheotomy performed during treatment and died. Principle: Medical treatment would only break the chain of causation if it was "so independent of the defendant's acts and in itself so potent in causing death" that the jury regard the contribution made by the defendant's acts as insignificant. Even negligent medical treatment rarely breaks the chain.
5. R v Blaue [1975]
The defendant stabbed a Jehovah's Witness who refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds and subsequently died. Principle: The thin skull rule applies in criminal law — the defendant must take the victim as they find them, including their religious beliefs. The victim's refusal of treatment did not break the chain of causation.
6. R v Pittwood [1902]
A railway crossing gatekeeper failed to close the gate, and a person crossing the tracks was killed by a train. Principle: A contractual duty can give rise to a duty to act. Failure to perform a contractual obligation that results in harm can form the actus reus of a criminal offence.
7. R v Miller [1983]
A squatter fell asleep while smoking and his mattress caught fire. He woke up, saw the fire, and simply moved to another room. The building was damaged. Principle: Where a defendant creates a dangerous situation, they have a duty to take reasonable steps to counteract that danger. Failing to do so can amount to an actus reus by omission (the "Miller principle" or duty from creating a dangerous situation).
8. R v Gibbins and Proctor [1918]
A father and his partner starved the father's seven-year-old daughter to death. Principle: A parent has a duty to care for their child. Deliberately failing to feed a child in your care, leading to death, is sufficient actus reus for murder.
Mens Rea
The mens rea is the mental element of a crime — the guilty mind. These cases define the different levels of intent, recklessness, and how the courts determine what a defendant was thinking.
9. R v Mohan [1976]
The defendant drove his car at a police officer who was trying to stop him. Principle: Direct intent is defined as "a decision to bring about, in so far as it lies within the accused's power, [the prohibited consequence], no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not." This is the core definition of direct intention.
10. R v Woollin [1999]
The defendant threw his three-month-old baby onto a hard surface, killing him. He said he had not intended to kill or cause serious harm. Principle: The House of Lords held that a jury may find oblique (indirect) intent where they are satisfied that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated this. This replaced the earlier, broader test in R v Nedrick [1986].
11. R v Cunningham [1957]
The defendant tore a gas meter from the wall of an empty house to steal the money inside. Gas leaked into the neighbouring house and the occupant was harmed. Principle: Recklessness in criminal law means subjective recklessness — the defendant must have foreseen the risk of the prohibited consequence and gone on to take that unreasonable risk. This is known as "Cunningham recklessness."
12. R v Latimer [1886]
The defendant aimed a blow with his belt at a man in a pub but the belt bounced off and struck a woman standing nearby, injuring her. Principle: The doctrine of transferred malice — if the defendant has the mens rea for a crime against one person but accidentally commits the actus reus against another, the mens rea is transferred. The defendant was guilty of assaulting the woman.
13. R v Pembliton [1874]
The defendant threw a stone at a group of people during a fight but missed and broke a window. Principle: Transferred malice only operates within the same type of offence. The mens rea for an offence against the person cannot be transferred to support a conviction for criminal damage (a property offence).
14. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain [1986]
A pharmacist supplied drugs on a forged prescription, genuinely believing the prescription was real. Principle: Some offences are crimes of strict liability — no mens rea is required for at least one element of the actus reus. The defendant was convicted despite having no fault.
Murder
Murder is the most serious criminal offence. These cases define and refine the elements of the offence.
15. R v Vickers [1957]
The defendant broke into a shop and beat an elderly woman to death when she discovered him. Principle: The mens rea for murder is intention to kill or intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). An intention to cause GBH is sufficient — you do not need to prove the defendant intended to kill.
16. R v Moloney [1985]
The defendant shot and killed his stepfather during a drunken game to see who could load and fire a shotgun fastest. Principle: The House of Lords confirmed that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention but may be evidence from which a jury can infer intention. This case began the refinement of the oblique intent direction later settled in Woollin.
17. Attorney-General's Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1998]
The defendant stabbed his pregnant girlfriend. The baby was born alive but later died from injuries caused by the stabbing. Principle: A conviction for murder requires the death of a person "in being" — the foetus must be born alive and subsequently die. The transferred malice doctrine applied from the mother to the child, but the House of Lords substituted manslaughter for murder.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter arises where the defendant would be guilty of murder but a partial defence reduces the conviction. The two main partial defences are loss of control and diminished responsibility.
18. R v Clinton [2012]
The defendant killed his wife after she taunted him about her infidelity and told him to kill himself. Principle: Sexual infidelity alone cannot be a qualifying trigger for loss of control under s.55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but it may be considered as part of the circumstances alongside other qualifying triggers.
19. R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer [2013]
Three conjoined appeals considering the loss of control defence. Principle: The Court of Appeal provided comprehensive guidance on the s.54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 loss of control defence, including that the qualifying trigger must be identified, and the question of whether a person of the defendant's sex and age with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint might have reacted in the same or a similar way is an objective test.
20. R v Byrne [1960]
The defendant strangled a young woman and then mutilated her body. He suffered from perverted sexual desires that he found difficult to control. Principle: Diminished responsibility requires an "abnormality of mental functioning" (originally "abnormality of mind"). This case established that an inability to exercise willpower or control physical acts can amount to such an abnormality.
21. R v Dietschmann [2003]
The defendant killed a man while drunk. He also suffered from an adjustment disorder following a bereavement. Principle: Diminished responsibility can apply even where the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the killing, provided the abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired responsibility. The jury must disregard the effects of alcohol and consider whether the mental condition alone would amount to diminished responsibility.
22. R v Golds [2016]
The defendant killed his partner and pleaded diminished responsibility. Principle: The Supreme Court held that "substantial" impairment in the context of diminished responsibility means something more than merely trivial — it has its ordinary English meaning of being important or weighty. The jury should be given this direction where there is a dispute about the meaning.
Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter covers killings where the defendant did not have the mens rea for murder. The two main types are unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter.
23. R v Church [1966]
The defendant knocked a woman unconscious during a fight. Believing her to be dead, he threw her body into a river where she drowned. Principle: Unlawful act manslaughter requires an unlawful act that is dangerous — an act that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the victim to the risk of some harm, albeit not serious harm.
24. R v Mitchell [1983]
The defendant punched an elderly man in a post office queue. The man fell onto an elderly woman, who was injured and later died. Principle: The unlawful act need not be directed at the victim. The doctrine of transferred malice applies to unlawful act manslaughter. The act must simply cause the death.
25. R v Kennedy (No 2) [2007]
The defendant prepared a syringe of heroin and handed it to the victim, who injected himself and died. Principle: Where the victim makes a free and informed decision to inject themselves, this breaks the chain of causation. The defendant's act of preparing and handing over the syringe was not the cause of death. The victim's voluntary act was an intervening event.
26. R v Adomako [1995]
An anaesthetist failed to notice that an oxygen tube had become disconnected during surgery. The patient died. Principle: Gross negligence manslaughter requires: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) the breach causing death, and (4) the breach being so grossly negligent as to justify criminal conviction. This is the leading case on the elements of the offence.
27. R v Evans [2009]
The defendant gave heroin to her half-sister, who self-injected and developed symptoms of overdose. The defendant failed to call for medical help and the victim died. Principle: A duty of care for gross negligence manslaughter can arise where the defendant creates or contributes to the creation of a state of affairs which they know or ought to know is threatening the life of the victim.
Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person
These offences range from common assault to grievous bodily harm. They are governed by common law and the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861.
28. R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1998]
Ireland made silent telephone calls causing psychiatric harm. Burstow stalked the victim, causing severe depression. Principle: An assault can be committed by words or even silence (telephone calls). Psychiatric injury can amount to actual bodily harm (s.47) or grievous bodily harm (s.20). GBH does not require a physical assault — inflicting harm includes causing psychiatric illness.
29. R v Chan Fook [1994]
The defendant aggressively questioned and assaulted a man he suspected of stealing his fiancee's ring. Principle: Actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. It need not be permanent but must be more than merely transient or trifling. Psychiatric injury can be ABH, but mere emotions such as fear or distress are insufficient.
30. R v Savage; R v Parmenter [1992]
Savage threw a glass of beer at another woman in a pub; the glass slipped from her hand and cut the victim. Principle: For s.47 OAPA, the mens rea required is only the mens rea for the assault or battery — there is no need to prove the defendant intended or foresaw the actual bodily harm. The defendant need only intend or be reckless as to the initial assault or battery.
31. R v Dica [2004]
The defendant, knowing he was HIV-positive, had unprotected sexual intercourse with two women who contracted the virus. Principle: Recklessly transmitting a serious sexual infection can amount to inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 OAPA. Consent to sexual intercourse is not the same as consent to the risk of infection where the defendant concealed their condition.
32. R v Bollom [2003]
The defendant caused bruising to a 17-month-old child. Principle: Whether injuries amount to grievous bodily harm (really serious harm) must be assessed in the context of the victim's age and health. Bruising that might be minor on an adult can constitute GBH on a very young child.
33. R v Grimshaw [1984]
The defendant pushed a glass into a man's face in a pub after he made a rude comment about her appearance. Principle: The mens rea for s.20 GBH is intention or recklessness as to causing some physical harm — the defendant need not foresee serious harm, only some harm. This is known as the Mowatt [1968] principle, confirmed in Grimshaw.
34. R v Morrison [1989]
The defendant, who was being arrested, dived through a window dragging a police officer with him. The officer suffered severe cuts. Principle: For s.18 GBH (wounding or causing GBH with intent), the prosecution must prove specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist lawful arrest. Recklessness is not sufficient for s.18 — this distinguishes it from s.20.
Property Offences
These cases define the elements of theft, robbery, burglary, and fraud.
35. R v Gomez [1993]
The defendant, an assistant manager at an electrical goods shop, persuaded his manager to accept stolen cheques in exchange for goods. Principle: Appropriation under s.3 Theft Act 1968 includes any assumption of any of the rights of the owner, even where the owner consents to the taking. This broad interpretation was confirmed by the House of Lords.
36. R v Hinks [2001]
The defendant befriended a man of limited intelligence and persuaded him to give her money and a television set. Principle: Even a valid gift can amount to an appropriation for the purposes of theft. This extended the Gomez principle — appropriation is a neutral concept, and the question of dishonesty becomes the key element.
37. Oxford v Moss [1979]
A university student obtained an advance copy of an examination paper, read it, and returned it. Principle: Confidential information is not "property" within the meaning of s.4 Theft Act 1968. You cannot steal information — only tangible property or things falling within the statutory definition.
38. R v Turner (No 2) [1971]
The defendant took his own car from a garage where it was being repaired, without paying for the repairs. Principle: Property can "belong to another" under s.5 Theft Act 1968 even if the defendant is the legal owner. The garage had possession and control of the car, giving them a proprietary right.
39. Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]
A professional gambler used a legitimate technique called "edge sorting" to win at punto banco. The casino refused to pay. Principle: The Supreme Court replaced the two-stage Ghosh [1982] test for dishonesty with a single objective test. The test is now: (1) what was the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts, and (2) was what they did dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people? There is no requirement that the defendant realised their conduct was dishonest by those standards.
40. R v Dawson and James [1976]
One defendant pushed the victim while the other took his wallet. Principle: Robbery under s.8 Theft Act 1968 requires force or the threat of force "immediately before or at the time of" the theft. Even a small amount of force (a nudge or push) is sufficient.
41. R v Hale [1979]
The defendant put his hand over the victim's mouth while an accomplice went upstairs and stole a jewellery box. Principle: Theft can be treated as a continuing act for the purposes of robbery. The force used while the theft was still ongoing was sufficient — the appropriation did not end at the moment the property was first taken.
42. R v Collins [1973]
The defendant, naked, climbed a ladder and entered a bedroom window where a woman (who mistook him for her boyfriend) invited him in. Principle: For burglary under s.9 Theft Act 1968, the defendant must enter as a trespasser. If the defendant has an honest belief that they have permission to enter, they are not a trespasser. The entry must be "effective and substantial."
Defences
Defences are critical to criminal law. They may lead to a complete acquittal (full defences) or reduce the severity of the conviction (partial defences, covered under manslaughter above).
43. R v Martin (Anthony) [2002]
A farmer shot two burglars who broke into his farmhouse, killing one and injuring the other. Principle: Self-defence requires the force used to be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. The defendant's psychiatric condition (paranoid personality disorder) could be relevant to the question of whether the force was reasonable, but the jury found it was disproportionate.
44. R v Clegg [1995]
A soldier at a checkpoint in Northern Ireland shot and killed a joyrider. The fatal shot was the fourth — fired after the car had passed the checkpoint. Principle: Self-defence is an all-or-nothing defence. If the force used is excessive, the defence fails entirely and the defendant is guilty of murder. There is no reduction to manslaughter for excessive self-defence (unlike in some other jurisdictions).
45. R v Graham [1982]
The defendant helped his flatmate kill the defendant's wife by holding an electric flex around her neck while the flatmate pulled it. The defendant claimed he acted under duress from his flatmate. Principle: The test for duress has two parts: (1) was the defendant compelled to act because of a genuine fear of death or serious injury (subjective), and (2) would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the defendant's characteristics have responded in the same way (objective)?
46. R v Hasan [2005]
The defendant committed a burglary, claiming he was forced to do so by a violent associate. Principle: Duress is not available if the defendant voluntarily associated with people he knew or ought to have known were likely to subject him to compulsion by threats of violence. The House of Lords tightened the rules on self-induced duress.
47. R v Howe [1987]
Two defendants participated in the torture and murder of two victims, claiming they were acting under threats from a third man. Principle: Duress is not available as a defence to murder or attempted murder, whether the defendant is the principal offender or a secondary party. The House of Lords overruled the earlier decision in R v Lynch [1975].
48. DPP v Majewski [1977]
The defendant assaulted a pub landlord and police officers while heavily intoxicated on alcohol and drugs. Principle: Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to crimes of specific intent (such as murder, s.18 GBH, theft) — it may negate the required mens rea. It is not a defence to crimes of basic intent (such as manslaughter, s.20 GBH, assault) because becoming voluntarily intoxicated is itself a reckless course of conduct.
49. M'Naghten's Case [1843]
Daniel M'Naghten shot and killed the secretary of the Prime Minister, believing him to be the Prime Minister. M'Naghten suffered from paranoid delusions. Principle: The insanity defence requires proof that, at the time of committing the act, the defendant was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
50. R v Quick [1973]
A nurse assaulted a patient during a hypoglycaemic episode caused by taking insulin without eating. Principle: This case established the distinction between insanity and automatism. A condition caused by an external factor (such as insulin — an external substance) is classified as non-insane automatism, which leads to a full acquittal. A condition arising from an internal cause (such as a disease) falls under insanity. This internal/external distinction is fundamental to both defences.
How to Use These Cases in the Exam
Knowing the cases is only half the battle — you must also use them effectively in your exam answers.
In scenario (problem) questions, cite cases to support each step of your legal analysis. For example: "The issue is whether D caused V's death. Applying the 'but for' test from R v White [1910], but for D's actions, V would not have died. Legal causation is established as D's act was the operating and substantial cause of death (R v Smith [1959])."
In essay questions, use cases as evidence to support your arguments. For example: "The current law on oblique intent, as established in R v Woollin [1999], gives juries flexibility to find intention where death or serious harm was a virtual certainty. However, the use of the word 'find' rather than 'infer' has been criticised for blurring the line between intention and recklessness."
General tips for citing cases:
- Always give the case name and date. You do not need to know the full citation (e.g., law report references).
- State the principle concisely — one sentence is usually enough.
- Apply the principle to the facts of the scenario. This is where the marks are.
- Where two cases conflict or show the development of a principle, explain the relationship between them.
- Quality matters more than quantity. Cite the most relevant cases, not every case you know.
Revise Smarter with LearningBro
This list covers the 50 cases that appear most frequently in AQA A-Level Law exams and mark schemes. If you can recall and apply every one of these cases, you will have a significant advantage.
For full interactive revision of criminal law — with hundreds of practice questions, instant feedback, and topic-by-topic coverage — explore our course: AQA A-Level Law: Criminal Law.