actus reus/mens rea/definitions

Question 1

assault mens rea

Answer 1

the defendant intended or was reckless that the victim would apprehend imminent unlawful force.

Question 2

assault actus reus

Answer 2

the defendant caused the victim to apprehend imminent unlawful violence.

Question 3

battery/assault defintion

Answer 3

a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact

Question 4

battery actus reus

Answer 4

the defendant touched or applied force to the victim.

Question 5

battery mens rea

Answer 5

involves either intention or recklessness as to the application of force

Question 6

what is battery and assault under

Answer 6

s39 c and ja act 1988

Question 7

what is gbh under

Answer 7

offences against the persons act

Question 8

what is gbh s20

Answer 8

GBH or grievous bodily harm is really serious bodily harm can include physcriatric injury

Question 9

what is s18 oapa

Answer 9

gbh with intent - life imprisonment

inent to cause serious injury/harm or wounding is required

Question 10

what is s20 oapa

Answer 10

did not intend to cause gbh or cause harm

Question 11

gbh s218 mens rea

Answer 11

the defendant intended to cause grievous bodily harm

Question 12

gbh s20 mens rea (wounding without intent)

Answer 12

the defendant intended to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of any person.

Question 13

gbh actus reus

Answer 13

the defendant unlawfully either wounded the victim or inflicted grievous bodily harm to the victim

it is not necessary to show that the defendant intended or foresaw that the victim would suffer grievous bodily harm.

Question 14

abh defintion

Answer 14

Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm statutory offence

Question 15

abh actus reus

Answer 15

the defendant must commit an assault or battery which causes the victim to suffer actual bodily harm.

Question 16

abh mens rea

Answer 16

the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the assault or battery.

Question 17

difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter

Answer 17

Murder Requires Malice Aforethought, Meaning The Perpetrator Intended To Cause Death Or Serious Harm, While Manslaughter Involves An Unlawful Killing Without Malice Aforethought.

Question 18

mens rea for murder

Answer 18

intention to kill or cause gbh

Mens Rea For Murder Generally Consists Of The Intention To Kill, Intention To Cause Grievous Bodily Harm That Results In Death, To Human Life, Where The Perpetrator Is Aware That Their Actions Could Cause Death But Proceeds Anyway.

Question 19

actus reus of murder

Answer 19

the unlawful killing of another person in the Queen’s peace

An Act Or Omission By The Perpetrator, That Directly Caused The Victim’s Death, And There Was No Intervening Act Or Event That Broke The Chain Of Causation Between The Perpetrator’s Act Or Omission And The Victim’s Death.

Question 20

what is murder under

Answer 20

common law offence

defined by Lord Coke in 1797 as an “unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being under the Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought, express or implied”.

Question 21

malice aforethought meaning

Answer 21

the intention to cause harm. For the offence of murder, the intention can either be “express” (to cause death) or “implied” (to cause Grievous Bodily Harm).

Question 22

expressed malice aforethought

Answer 22

Express malice is when a defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim

Question 23

implied malice

Answer 23

Implied malice is when the accused demonstrated a conscious disregard for human life

Question 24

what is causation

Answer 24

Causation is the relationship between the defendant and their conduct. It involves what they caused to happen and the end result - this will form the basis of whether the defendant is to blame whilst in court.

Question 25

more than de minimus

Answer 25

when a defendants actions are more than significant to be considered as substantial/relevant

used when considering liability

Question 26

new intervening act

Answer 26

breaks chain of causation

Question 27

how can the sentence be reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter

Answer 27

can utilise 2 partial defences Dr and loss of control

Question 28

what is dr and lol under

Answer 28

homocide act 1957

Question 29

what was dr an lol reformed by

Answer 29

c and ja act 2009

Question 30

Dr elements

Answer 30

Abnormality of mental functioning,
caused by a recognised medical condition,
substantially impaired
explanation for the defendant’s conduct

Question 31

what must be substantially impaired

Answer 31

Understand the nature of their conduct
Form a rational judgement
Exercise self-control

Question 32

who is the burdern of proof on in dr

Answer 32

the burden of proof is on the defendant

Question 33

what was abnormality of mental functioning previosly

Answer 33

abnormality of mind- upated law for a more widened defintion

Question 34

what defence did dr replace

Answer 34

insanity- social stigma

Question 35

lol elements

Answer 35

qualifying trigger eg things said or done or fear of violence

loss of self control( does not have to be sudden) R v aluwaliha

A person of D’s same sex and age,, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.

Question 36

things said or done

Answer 36

circumstances must be extremely graved or have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

Question 37

voluntary/involuntary intoxication

Answer 37

voluntary- d voluntarily intoxicated themselves

involuntary- unwillingly was intoxicated

Question 38

what is self defence

Answer 38

A man who is attacked or believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is both necessary and reasonable in order to defend himself.

force must be porporionate

Question 39

implied consent

Answer 39

where consent is assumed such as in contact sports R v barnes

Question 40

problems with consent

Answer 40

difficult to determine if defendants believe is genuine

Question 41

consent defintion

Answer 41

a person voluntarily and willfully agrees in response to another person’s proposition.

must have the mental capacity

Question 42

problems with self defence

Answer 42

-jury decide which makes it inconsistent

Geniune belief of defendant R v martin-difficult to determine what defendants geniune belief is.

Objective test

if to much force is used defence fails even if there was a genuine belief