Assaults Murder Defences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Section 18
Statute Penalty
AR MR
Case law

A

Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Wounding or causing GBH with intent - life imprisonment / indictable only.
AR - wounding or causing GBH
MR - intention to cause GBH / or intent to resist/prevent arrest with intent/recklessness to some harm
Walker = unlawful arrest not guilty
Bentley = belief unlawful not enough
GBH = serious harm = DPP v Smith

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q
Section 20
What is plus penalty and definition
AR MR
Definition and case law
Foresee?
A

Maliciously wound or inflict GBH - 5yrs / either way
Maliciously-intention or recklessness- Cunningham
AR causing a wound or inflicting GBH
MR intention to harm or reckless to causing harm
Must foresee some harm and go on to take it-r v g
Wound = blood = moriarty v Brooke’s
GBH = serious harm - DPP v smith
R v Lewis - do not need battery / scared jump window

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Section 47 and penalty

Foresee?

A

Assault occasioning abh - 5yrs/either way
AR common assault or battery causing abh
MR intent or recklessness to commit common assault or battery
do not need to foresee harm-savage;parmenter
Miller =does not need to be serious/ haircut=DPP v smith
Mental harm r v chan fook req med evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Battery
Statute and penalty
AR MR
Case law

A

Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 - 6mths summary
AR Infliction of unlawful personal violence
MR intention or recklessness to whether such violence is inflicted
Haystead - caused drop baby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Common Assault
AR MR
Case law

A

AR Act causes victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence -not creeping
MR intention to cause victim to apprehend violence or recklessness as to such apprehension = R v Venna
Fagan- classic definition / Ireland-words can be assault
Burstow -must be immediate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Factual causation

A

But for test-but for defendants actions would death occurred
R v white - poisoning mothers drink

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Legal causation

A

Is defendants actions
1. Operating and substantial cause of death injury
-malcherek
2 any intervening act was foreseen or foreseeable with no significant intervening act - r v Pagett

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Legal causation cases

A

Eggshell skull cases- Owen v Liverpool - to include cracks
R v blaue-blood transfusion post stabbing
R v Pitts - escaping
R v Williams & Davies - jumping from car
R v Cheshire - medical treatment so independent break chain
R v malcherek - operating and substantial cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Consent

A

R v Barnes - sport exemption

R v brown - sadomasochist acts no defence of consent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Defence of reasonable chastisement

A

A v UK

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Duress / murder

A

No defence to murder / Howe

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Voluntary Intoxication defence

A

Defence to specific intent crimes - murder

DPP v majewski

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Involuntary intoxication defence

A

Defence to any crime if no men’s rea formed

R v kingston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Murder - AR & MR

Note transferred malice case

A

AR - causing unlawful killing of human being- coke
MR - with the intention to kill or do GBH
Transferred malice- Latimer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Murder full defences - self defence x2

A

S.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
S.76(3) requires reasonable force subjectively - Gladstone Williams
S.76(6) than objectively
S.76(7),heat of moment considered as in Palmer
S.76(5) mistaken belief voluntary intoxication no good (as in O’Grady)
S.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 - reasonable force prevention of crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Murder defence.- insanity

A

M’naghten rules require proof on balance of probabilities of disease of mind - r v kemp, caused defect of reason - r v Clarke, therefore, did not know nature or quality of act or doing it was wrong - r v windle.

17
Q

Defence - non-insane automatism

A

Swarm of bees - hill v Baxter

18
Q

Defence - duress

A

R v Abdulhussain - escape death

R v Howe - duress no defence to murder

19
Q

Murder - partial defences - diminished rsp

A

S.2(1) of the homicide act 1957 - defence to prove on balance of probabilities not murder if suffering from abnormality of mental functioning, arose from medical condition, substantially impaired ability to do things s.2(1A) and provides explanation for acts
S.2(1A) (A) understand conduct, (B) form rational judgement (c) exercise self control - dietschmaan- alchohol dependency - Lloyd must be substantial impairment

20
Q

Murder partial defence loss of control

A

S.54 & 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
S.54(1) not convicted of murder if s54(1)(a) loss of self control
S.54(1)(b) had a qualifying trigger
S54(4) not available if revenge
QT in s.55. S.55(2) has QT if 3,4 or 5 applies
S.55(3) fear of serious violence, (4) things said or done caused (a) grave character and (b) justifiable sense of wrong, s55(5) combination.
S55(7) sexual infidelities not triggers, s55(6)(a) no incite to violence,(b) no incite things said.

21
Q

Partial defence to murder - suicide pacts

A

S4(1) Homicide Act 1957
S4(2) defence has to prove part of pact
S4(3) between two or more parties for death of all

22
Q

Involuntary manslaughter -.AR MR

A
AR - causing death of human 
MR no intention to kill or cause GBH 
But two types 
Unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter
Gross negligent manslaughter
23
Q

For UDA manslaughter -

A

Causing death of human being
Done a criminal act - Andrews v DPP
Which is dangerous - DPP v Newbury- carries some harm objective
Which caused death

24
Q

For gross negligent manslaughter

A

More than mere negligence - r v adomako 5 things to establish
A duty of care owed
Breach of duty
Serious risk of foreseeable death,not just injury - r v Singh
Evidence breach caused death
Jury to decide fell far below expected standards of person of standing

25
Q

For causing death by dangerous driving and penalty

A

Dangerous driving S2 & s2(a) of the road traffic act 1988
On road or public place, driving must fall far below standard expected, or vehicle in dangerous condition
Death by dangerous driving s1 road traffic act 1988 - 10yrs prison

26
Q

For corporate manslaughter

A

Corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide act 2007
Company separate entity, must be proved that
The defendant is relevant organisation, owed duty of care in law, organisation breached duty, breach caused death, a gross breach, substantial element of breach managed by senior management.

27
Q

Indirect Intent case

Recklessness case

A

Woollin, - indirect intent -virtually certainty that the consequence would occur and defendant went on to take it

R v G - recklessness defendant aware of causing some harm and goes on to take it

28
Q

Specific intent -

Basic intent -

A

Specific is only intent

Basic is intent or recklessness