Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law II cases > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Haughton v Smith [1975]

A

“The ultimate impossibility of achieving or carrying out a crime attempted is not a defence”

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

DPP v Armstrong [2000]

A

Defendant made a call to Jay, Jay was an undercover police officer in the paedophilia and child pornography sector, Defendant asked for nudes, Defendant arrested, the intention of the incited is not relevant

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

R v Campbell [1991]

A

Man had intentions to rob a post office, had a gun, was looking suspicious and was eventually arrested, never robbed post office, ABANDONMENT is not a defence

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

The People (AG) v O’Sullivan [1964]

A

“Was the act ‘sufficiently proximate’ to completion of intended offence?”

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

The People (AG) v Thornton [1952]

A

“Mere desire to commit an act, or a desire followed by an intention to do so is not sufficient to constitute an attempt”

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

R v Eagleton [1854-1855]

A

Proximate rule in Irish law. Acts immediately connected with the crime are attempts.

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

R v Calhaem [1985]

A

Defendant hired the principal to murder his love rival. Two men who liked a certain woman, the principal in this case killed the victim however he said he didn’t kill them because of an exchange with the victim, the court said that there was a slight connection between the counselling and the killing of the victim, the defendant wouldn’t have been at the scene if he wasn’t counselled to do so, him being there because of the counselling resorted in the victim being dead.

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

R v Clarkson [1971]

A

Walked into a room and saw a woman being raped, didn’t leave or do anything besides watch, he was acquitted as mere presence isn’t enough to qualify as abetting

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

DPP v Egan [1989]

A

Jewellers robbed, Egan allowed thieves to park in neighbouring businesses and knew their intentions

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

Thornton v Mitchell [1940]

A
  • no actus reus, then there is no secondary liability. Someone acquitted for an offence then the secondary perpetrator cannot be found guilty, knocked over two people and killed one, bus driver acquitted as no mens rea, bus conductor was convicted and later acquitted as there was no crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Hui Chi Ming v R [1992]

A

What happens when the principal isn’t convicted? Principal perpetrator took a plea deal, secondary perpetrator found guilty of murder (as this was original charge)

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

R v Kingston [1994]

A

Involuntary intoxication, intoxicant caused the accused to do something he otherwise would not have done or thought of doing, the man had paedophilic tendencies and another man set up a blackmail against him, the man set up a sexual encounter and drugged him, the man (Kingston) says if it was not for the blackmail he would not have been in that situation, House of Lords still say it was about his intention, and a drugging attempt is still attempt

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

R v Allen [1988]

A

Involuntary intoxication, underestimated quality and effect of substance taken (not enough for defence as he still took substance deliberately)

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

AG v Manning [1955]

A

Intoxication is self-induced if a person deliberately consumes such an amount of drugs to render themselves as intoxicated

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

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1961]

A

Dutch courage, drinking to get courage to commit a crime

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

DPP v Reilly [2005]

A

Endorsed Majewski in Ireland. Man who consumed many drinks is staying at home with his cousin, there was also a baby at his house, in the morning the mother checked on the baby, applicant was asleep near the baby, baby found dead with 8-9 stan wounds, applicant only woke up after water thrown on him, murder weapon found near the applicant, charged with murder but convicted for manslaughter, wasn’t actually alcohol that affected him as he had a sleeping problem, appeal dismissed as it’s based on alcohol and not sleeping disorder, reason was because of Majewski and principles in the case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Dental Board v O’Callaghan [1969]

A

Defendant was acting as a dentist without proper license, informant went in and asked questions, evidence allowed as it followed proper procedures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

R v Sang [1979] (UK CASE)

A

Induced intent is still intent - cannot exclude evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Jacobson v US [1992] (US CASE)

A

May not implant a criminal offence into an innocent persons mind

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Sherman v US [1958] (US CASE)

A

Distinguished providing an opportunity to a person to commit a criminal act and inciting an innocent person to commit a criminal offence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

People (AG) v Whelan [1934]

A

Duress is not a defence to murder. Crimes not as serious as murder can rely on duress as a defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

DPP v Gleeson [2018]

A

Prison officer regularly threw bags out of a prison window. When guards found bags, they found drugs. Gleeson said he was under duress by criminals.

23
Q

R v Dudley & Stephens [1884]

A

People on boat and lost at sea. Killed one person and ate him so they could survive.

24
Q

s52, Children Act 2001

A

Under 12 - no capacity
Over 12 - capacity
10-12 - serious crime capacity

25
Q

JM v Runeckles [1984]

A

(Old act/system)
Child stabbed defendant.
Court said child had to appreciate what they did was wrong and had to prove child had knowledge and understanding.

26
Q

KM v DPP [1994]

A

Applicant accused of rape. Threatened the victim (the fact the child uses rape as an offence shows they knew the seriousness)

27
Q

R v Kemp [1957]

A

“A disease of the mind is any condition that impairs the working of the mind, and, in this context, mind means the mental faculties of reason, memory, and understanding”

28
Q

M’Naghten rules

A
  1. The accused was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of the alleged offence, and
  2. Such disease caused a defect of reason such that;
    a. He did not know the nature and
    quality of his act or,
    b. If he did know its nature, he did
    not know it was wrong
29
Q

Duress test

A
  1. The defendant reasonably believed that:
    a. A threat was made
    b. It will be carried out unless
    unlawful act committed
  2. There is no reasonable way to avoid the threat
  3. Acting unlawfully is considered reasonable
30
Q

Necessity definition

A

Forced to commit a crime because certain circumstances made it necessary to do so

31
Q

s7(1), Criminal Law Act 1997

A

“Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal perpetrator”

32
Q

Diminished responsibility definition

A

The defence of diminished responsibility is an attempt to “accommodate mental disorders less than full insanity where an intentional killing was committed”

33
Q

Article 6 ECHR

A

Fair and public hearing related to civil and criminal charges

34
Q

Teixeira de Castro v Portugal [1998]

A

The court accepted the need for undercover operations but reserved a ‘right to a fair administration of justice’

35
Q

Criminal Justice (Administration) Act 1924

A

‘Nolle prosequi’ (will no longer prosecute)

36
Q

s25(3) of Criminal Justice Act 1984

A

Jury must deliberate for a minimum of two hours before a judge can instruct the jury to come to a majority vote

37
Q

s18 & 19 of Criminal Justice Act 1984

A

Allows for inferences to be drawn

38
Q

Bail granted

A

Must enter into a recognisance / bond with court

Breach of bail:
Revoke bail / money penalty / bench warrant / consecutive penalty

Conditions:
Must turn up on all days / no offences while on bail

39
Q

Bail refused

A

Can appeal to HCA (High Court Appeal)

Can reapply after 4 months if no trial.
Can apply again if new circumstances appear in trial.

40
Q

Who can grant bail?

A

Trial judge / courts / garda station bail

41
Q

Bail

A

Release from custody

Regulated by Bail Act 1997 (amended by Criminal Justice Act 2007 and Criminal Justice Act 2017)

42
Q

DPP v O’Callaghan [1966]

A
  1. Whether he will abscond or stand trial
  2. Whether he will interfere with witnesses
  3. Belief/fear that he will destroy evidence
43
Q

DPP v Healy [1990]

A

Right to a solicitor

44
Q

DPP v Gormley & White [2014]

A

Admissions made before the arrival of solicitor, admissions excluded.

45
Q

Detention

A

s4 of Criminal Justice Act 1984
6 hours -> 6 hours (Super approval) -> 12 hours (Chief Super approval)

s30 Offences Against the State Act 1939
24 hours -> 24 hours (Chief Super approval) -> 24 hours (Application to District Court by Chief Super)

46
Q

DPP v Armstrong and Morris [1966]

A

‘Where two persons embark on a joint enterprise, each is liable for the acts done in pursuance of that joint enterprise’

47
Q

Key necessary conditions for joint enterprise

A
  1. An agreement
    • express agreement, or
    • tacit (implied) agreement
  2. Regarding type/quality of actions in pursuit of joint enterprise
    • all secondary parties are liable for unusual consequences resulting from authorised acts of the principal
    • but not liable for acts going beyond what was agreed
48
Q

R v Becerra and Cooper [1976]

A

B and C committing a burglary, C was confronted by victim, B said “let’s go”, C kills victim, both convicted for murder, B appeals saying he withdrew from JE, Court of Appeal explains “let’s go” was insufficient communication.
If taking a knife to a burglary, you can reasonably foresee that it will be used at some point.

49
Q

Syon v Hewitt and McTiernan [2006]

A

High Court refused to accept entrapment as a substantive defence

50
Q

Chan Wing-Siu v R [1985]

A

Not everyone carrying knife. Defendants knew of knife being carried. All liable.

51
Q

Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1936]

A

Strangled a girl, had epilepsy which is a disease of the mind, epilepsy had to be happening at time of act.

52
Q

DPP v Patrick O’Dwyer [2007]

A

Killed his sister with a hammer and stabbed her, wrote “butcher boy” ok the wall and hit himself with a hammer, he went unconscious and when he woke up turned himself into police, psychologist said he has depersonalisation disorder

53
Q

R v Dickie [1984]

A

Manic depressive psychotic, set fire to a waste basket which burned down whole building, said he understood his act but not the consequences

Criminal Law II cases (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions