Assaults Murder Defences

Question 1

Section 18
Statute Penalty
AR MR
Case law

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Section 20
What is plus penalty and definition
AR MR
Definition and case law
Foresee?

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Section 47 and penalty

Foresee?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Battery
Statute and penalty
AR MR
Case law

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Common Assault
AR MR
Case law

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Factual causation

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Legal causation

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Legal causation cases

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Consent

Answer 9

R v Barnes - sport exemption

R v brown - sadomasochist acts no defence of consent

Question 10

Defence of reasonable chastisement

Answer 10

A v UK

Question 11

Duress / murder

Answer 11

No defence to murder / Howe

Question 12

Voluntary Intoxication defence

Answer 12

Defence to specific intent crimes - murder

DPP v majewski

Question 13

Involuntary intoxication defence

Answer 13

Defence to any crime if no men’s rea formed

R v kingston

Question 14

Murder - AR & MR

Note transferred malice case

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Murder full defences - self defence x2

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Murder defence.- insanity

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Defence - non-insane automatism

Answer 17

Swarm of bees - hill v Baxter

Question 18

Defence - duress

Answer 18

R v Abdulhussain - escape death

R v Howe - duress no defence to murder

Question 19

Murder - partial defences - diminished rsp

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Murder partial defence loss of control

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

Partial defence to murder - suicide pacts

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Involuntary manslaughter -.AR MR

Answer 22

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

Question 23

For UDA manslaughter -

Answer 23

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

Question 24

For gross negligent manslaughter

Answer 24

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

Question 25

For causing death by dangerous driving and penalty

Answer 25

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

Question 26

For corporate manslaughter

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

Indirect Intent case | Recklessness case

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Specific intent - | Basic intent -

Answer 28

Specific is only intent | Basic is intent or recklessness